Phil Housley should be fired.

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

One win any everything is fine again.

No, but it is a sign that he hasn't lost the team.  I was at the game in Raleigh and they  played some very good minutes.  2 bad goals by Ullmark and a missed open net by Sheary (plus a missed break away by ERod) cost us the game.

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

I’m pretty sure that the Sabres implementing a particular style of play starts with the GM.

Botterill wants his team to play a certain way - he wants a franchise identity that many here say we’ve lacked. He hired a coach who believes in the same style of game to not only implement it, but teach it to the young guys while he (Botterill) works at acquiring more players who can shine in that system.

Botterill made it pretty clear a few weeks back that he doesn’t think the roster is good enough yet, but he was happy with what he has seen from his coach in terms of communicating the system and developing players - which seems to be Botterill’s primary focus in year two of his rebuild.

He didnt hand Phil a group of players and say find a way to make them win, he said teach these guys how to play our way.

Who has developed for the better as the season has gone on? When looking at Eichel, Reinhart, Mittelstadt, PIlut, etc I see the same player at season's end as I did at the start of the season.

That something as elementary and simple as communicating the system can be the primary objective in a second full season in a professional hockey league is just not something I'm able to grasp. 

We speak so much of how much roster turnover needs to still happen. If entire seasons need to be devoted to teaching our guys how to play hockey, why is this going to be any different with Botterill's next upheaval of the Middle 6? 

This team will win the the focus is actually on winning.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Thorny

[SDS]

57 minutes ago, eman said:

I know that. You're stating the obvious. My point being, Phil is here post tank and we are seeing similar hockey being played. I hope I cleared that up for you.

Like dudacek alluded to... if your only metric is wins and losses, the hockey is similar. If your metrics include everything else that happens on the ice then, no they are similar. 

You can’t have 28 as your 1C in one season and a 4th-liner in a different season and say they are similar. 

[Thorner]

30 minutes ago, dudacek said:

We are very clearly not seeing similar hockey being played.

During the tank (and under Bylsma) the underlying metrics for the Sabres were bad - historically bad,if I remember correctly. The ice was regularly tilted, we got outshot 40 to 25 on a regular basis. We scored less than 2 goals a game and allowed 3 1/2. During the tank year, we were outscored by 3 or more goals 26 times, limited to 1 or fewer goals 35 times, and scored 5 in a game just twice all year.

The underlying  metrics now are around 20th best in the league. We are in most games. We actually get scoring chances and can sometimes move the puck out of our zone.

I don’t blame people for blacking out the tank, but this is nothing like the tank.

No, of course it's not the tank. That team was intentionally trying to lose.

It's at about the same level as the Bylsma teams, with the added benefit of better health from our key players this season.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Thorny

[JJFIVEOH]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

I’m pretty sure that the Sabres implementing a particular style of play starts with the GM.

Botterill wants his team to play a certain way - he wants a franchise identity that many here say we’ve lacked. He hired a coach who believes in the same style of game to not only implement it, but teach it to the young guys while he (Botterill) works at acquiring more players who can shine in that system.

Botterill made it pretty clear a few weeks back that he doesn’t think the roster is good enough yet, but he was happy with what he has seen from his coach in terms of communicating the system and developing players - which seems to be Botterill’s primary focus in year two of his rebuild.

He didnt hand Phil a group of players and say find a way to make them win, he said teach these guys how to play our way.

You bring up some good points, but I'm still not convinced. To be playing tank level hockey with a team much more talented than the tank teams is unacceptable. Housley will forever be a teacher/assistant coach, and no more.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, JJFIVEOH said:

You bring up some good points, but I'm still not convinced. To be playing tank level hockey with a team much more talented than the tank teams is unacceptable. Housley will forever be a teacher/assistant coach, and no more.

It's a disservice to the argument to compare this team to the tank teams, this team is much better.

Botterill has brought them back up to where we were 3 years ago, in 2016, after helping them fall lower than that during his process. 

[JJFIVEOH]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

It's a disservice to the argument to compare this team to the tank teams, this team is much better.

Botterill has brought them back up to where we were 3 years ago, in 2016, after helping them fall lower than that during his process. 

I agree, this team is much better. And I mentioned that. So to go 11-22-7 in the last 40, that's on the coach.

[Thorner]

11 minutes ago, JJFIVEOH said:

I agree, this team is much better. And I mentioned that. So to go 11-22-7 in the last 40, that's on the coach.

I don't like the coach either, buy I can't attribute as much blame to him as I would Botterill, simply because he is the guy in charge. 

I was exceptionally turned off by the fact Botterill gave lip-service to ideas for better line-up usage, like Reinhart being on his own line, Risto getting less minutes, etc, only to stand by and allow Housley to do the opposite. 

It can't be the communication thing, again, right? So Botterill is either being dishonest in his interview, and supports the wacky player usage from Phil, or he's being honest and has elected to let Phil do what he wants to the detriment of the organization despite being in disagreement. 

The follow up argument is - Botterill lets Phil get on with it because he doesn't feel he himself gave the team a chance to win in his second full season, anyways. In which case I'm back to square one with regards to taking issue with the timeline.

Serious question: Who here views next season as another season about primarily learning the system, and development? Follow up question would be, at what point do you expect Botterill to field a non bottom-10 roster? What season are playoffs the expectation? 

Edited March 18, 2019 by Thorny

[TrueBlueGED]

8 hours ago, dudacek said:

I'm checking out before people start seeing me as a Phil defender.

I'm looking for an explanation of the things that Phil is doing wrong and the answers boil down to: "he's losing."

I miss Flagg.

I think his player usage is a pretty clear knock against him. It's not a cliche. He consistently deploys players suboptimally, and a fair number of relevant examples have been provided. If you're looking for a systems breakdown, then yea, the one guy who could and would do that is still on hiatus unfortunately. 

8 hours ago, SDS said:

You have my full support in pretty much everything you have been saying lately... Asking people to go beyond the cliches isn't unreasonable.

Looking at the tweets from the Leafs last game, I would think the light would go on when the comments from each fan base look very familiar, despite the different coaches and records. It can't mean much if it applies to both teams.

It's not unreasonable, but it probably is unrealistic if you're looking for a Flagg-style deep dive. I'd love to see it, but I can't exactly blame anyone for not doing it. That said, I do think most of the "ready to play" and "effort" style cliches are hogwash. 

On the flip side, I'm still searching for positive reasons to keep him. To me, the evidence suggests he's one of probably 15-20 replacement level coaches in the NHL lost in the great ocean of coaching mediocrity. I want better than that. I want someone who I think can give me an advantage in a playoff series. 

[dudacek]

43 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It's a disservice to the argument to compare this team to the tank teams, this team is much better.

Botterill has brought them back up to where we were 3 years ago, in 2016, after helping them fall lower than that during his process. 

I completely agree with your central point, that it is not impossible, or even unreasonable to ask for more than “as good as the team he inherited,” but that is not the path Botterill chose to take.

Contrary to what Kruppstahl likes to claim, Botterill has aggressively dismantled Murray’s team - on and off the ice - and embarked on a rebuild from scratch, short-term pain for long-term gain philosophy. He ejected two top-six forwards for futures, installed a new system that was radically different than what came before it, handed the leadership over to the younger generation, force-fed three raw rookies into prominent roles, ate some bad contracts, and stayed away from short-term trades and kept underperforming vets in the lineup in the name of development down on the farm.

He stuck with his plan when the team outperformed it early, and he stuck with it when the team collapsed late. For better, or for worse, he is committed to the long game.

And we will have to wait to find out if he is a stubborn visionary or a stubborn fool.

Edited March 18, 2019 by dudacek

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

I think his player usage is a pretty clear knock against him. It's not a cliche. He consistently deploys players suboptimally, and a fair number of relevant examples have been provided. If you're looking for a systems breakdown, then yea, the one guy who could and would do that is still on hiatus unfortunately. 

It's not unreasonable, but it probably is unrealistic if you're looking for a Flagg-style deep dive. I'd love to see it, but I can't exactly blame anyone for not doing it. That said, I do think most of the "ready to play" and "effort" style cliches are hogwash. 

On the flip side, I'm still searching for positive reasons to keep him. To me, the evidence suggests he's one of probably 15-20 replacement level coaches in the NHL lost in the great ocean of coaching mediocrity. I want better than that. I want someone who I think can give me an advantage in a playoff series. 

I'm worried about how many hires/signings there are here currently, infecting the organization, that have low positive difference-making ceilings because the expectations organizationally are so acceptably low. 

[eman]

57 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

What is the difference between Babcock's situation and PH's?  That is a great question with a simple answer.  This is year 4 of the Babcock tenure and he twice the talent of the Sabres yet can't get them past the 1st rd.  With that roster I think it is understandable why the fans, media and management want better results.

PH is in year 2 with an incomplete roster.  It's apples and oranges.

Yup, Babcock in the hot seat and I believe Phil is in the hot seat also. If we get the same play of this club by December of next season, I believe Phil will not survive it. I could be wrong about it, but I think the fan base will be screaming for change at that point (if they/we aren't already?)

[eman]

41 minutes ago, SDS said:

Like dudacek alluded to... if your only metric is wins and losses, the hockey is similar. If your metrics include everything else that happens on the ice then, no they are similar. 

You can’t have 28 as your 1C in one season and a 4th-liner in a different season and say they are similar. 

I'm saying the style of hockey especially in those games where they look completely lost and no effort forthcoming. Have we not seen a bunch of those again this season? It happened last season and it started to rear its head again this season. Also, in the end , wins and losses are what ultimately counts and over the past 8 years (and granted,  several coaches) the Sabres are woefully short in the wins column.

[eman]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

We are very clearly not seeing similar hockey being played.

During the tank (and under Bylsma) the underlying metrics for the Sabres were bad - historically bad,if I remember correctly. The ice was regularly tilted, we got outshot 40 to 25 on a regular basis. We scored less than 2 goals a game and allowed 3 1/2. During the tank year, we were outscored by 3 or more goals 26 times, limited to 1 or fewer goals 35 times, and scored 5 in a game just twice all year.

The underlying  metrics now are around 20th best in the league. We are in most games. We actually get scoring chances and can sometimes move the puck out of our zone.

I don’t blame people for blacking out the tank, but this is nothing like the tank.

Even when this club was on its 10 gamer. People were on this site, and while rejoicing, also saw that we were getting outshot in those games by quite a bit and were a little concerned over the style of play the Sabres during that streak. They were right. It was fun but we got a little puck luck and the goaltenders were standing on their head back then. How many were won in regulation during that 10 gamer? Then came December and we're back to square one. Our winning percentage from that month on is what? 30th in the league. Sorry, I see minimal progress.

[dudacek]

9 minutes ago, Thorny said:

.

Serious question: Who here views next season as another season about primarily learning the system, and development? Follow up question would be, at what point do you expect Botterill to field a non bottom-10 roster? What season are playoffs the expectation? 

You can pass year one off as assessment and year two as growth. Year three should be relevance.

Right now we have three first liners, three third-liners (Sheary, Okposo, Rodrigues) and a bunch of fourth-liners up front. Three of those fourth liners have to turn into 2nd liners bY development or replacement and our goaltending has to improve for us to join the race.

Botterill has promised us player development and he has set himself up with the cap space and fluid assets to manoeuvre. He’s had the time to reset the cap, and rebuild the system and the culture.

His development process needs to start showing some payoff and I see know reason why he can’t make the moves this summer needed to plug the biggest holes.

 

[JJFIVEOH]

1 hour ago, eman said:

Yup, Babcock in the hot seat and I believe Phil is in the hot seat also. If we get the same play of this club by December of next season, I believe Phil will not survive it. I could be wrong about it, but I think the fan base will be screaming for change at that point (if they/we aren't already?)

What scares me is the Sabres get into this kind of play next season and it will be too late to salvage anything and it will be another lost season. 

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

59 minutes ago, JJFIVEOH said:

What scares me is the Sabres get into this kind of play next season and it will be too late to salvage anything and it will be another lost season. 

So , you aren't worried that we might be in 1st place come US Thanksgiving? 

Then what? Do you still fire PH or do you take the chance that next year bares better results?

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

6 hours ago, JJFIVEOH said:

What we have is a team that is being built to succeed that (since the win streak) is holding almost the same win percentage as the teams that were built to fail. The talent level is on this team is leaps and bounds better than the tank teams and the results are the same. Housley is soft and weak. Just like his playing style. He is forcing the team to play his style instead of focusing on individual talents. It's the same thing Goober Bylsma did, and look where that got them. 

Good coaches force a system. Great coaches build successful teams by focusing on his players' strengths.

Why do you need to be so snarky?

Not being snarky.....corrective and informative, sure.

Soft and weak, yet forceful in implementing a team system.

You can't really focus on individual talents in a "team" environment, at least not totally. I think Phil has done well with what he has to work with. Our middle six needs some serious help and when it comes there will be undeniable improvement.

If you focus on individual talent you will need 10 different systems running at once. You need to impose a system and then get the players to adhere to it by either teaching, replacing them with the style player you need, or hopefully it comes natural to them.

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

You can pass year one off as assessment and year two as growth. Year three should be relevance.

Right now we have three first liners, three third-liners (Sheary, Okposo, Rodrigues) and a bunch of fourth-liners up front. Three of those fourth liners have to turn into 2nd liners bY development or replacement and our goaltending has to improve for us to join the race.

Botterill has promised us player development and he has set himself up with the cap space and fluid assets to manoeuvre. He’s had the time to reset the cap, and rebuild the system and the culture.

His development process needs to start showing some payoff and I see know reason why he can’t make the moves this summer needed to plug the biggest holes.

 

What do you mean by the bolded?

We can't seriously be thinking he had 3 years to reach bubble-team status, right?

Edited March 19, 2019 by Thorny

[...]

27 minutes ago, Thorny said:

What do you mean by the bolded?

We can't seriously be thinking he had 3 years to reach bubble-team status, right?

I think the argument can be made that if it weren't for a lapse in goal-tending, this would be a bubble team this season.

Huh, whack-a-doodle double post.

Edited March 19, 2019 by ...
The Ghost of Dwight Drane

[Brawndo]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

I don't like the coach either, buy I can't attribute as much blame to him as I would Botterill, simply because he is the guy in charge. 

I was exceptionally turned off by the fact Botterill gave lip-service to ideas for better line-up usage, like Reinhart being on his own line, Risto getting less minutes, etc, only to stand by and allow Housley to do the opposite. 

It can't be the communication thing, again, right? So Botterill is either being dishonest in his interview, and supports the wacky player usage from Phil, or he's being honest and has elected to let Phil do what he wants to the detriment of the organization despite being in disagreement. 

The follow up argument is - Botterill lets Phil get on with it because he doesn't feel he himself gave the team a chance to win in his second full season, anyways. In which case I'm back to square one with regards to taking issue with the timeline.

Serious question: Who here views next season as another season about primarily learning the system, and development? Follow up question would be, at what point do you expect Botterill to field a non bottom-10 roster? What season are playoffs the expectation? 

What if he is using this season as an evaluation of Phil as well by allowing him to final lineup decisions? 

He was pretty forthcoming about the fact that He and Jason Nightengale from the Analytics Department give their input on how they feel that the lineup should look on game day, but that the lineup we see on the ice on that day is all Phil and his Staff. 

And no matter your thoughts on Analytics People and their role in today’s game, universally they have been pretty negative about a majority of Phil’s Decisions. 

And I do find it interesting that shortly after Botterill made his comments that a short time later Brian Duff said on a Post Game Show there is a lot of time between now and the end of the season for things  to be change. Also last Wednesday Marty Biron was the WGR Morning Show for a hour with Jeremy White and he spoke about how other teams how have made coaching changes after two years If they feel they can improve. This does not sound like the PSE Company Line. 

If Housley stays on as HC, which I expect him to do, he does need to replace Davis Payne, Chris Hajt and Andrew Allen. The question becomes how many good Assistants will come to Buffalo, if Housley has the potential not to survive past November? 

 

 

[JJFIVEOH]

20 minutes ago, ... said:

I think the argument can be made that if it weren't for a lapse in goal-tending, this would be a bubble team this season.

Huh, whack-a-doodle double post.

I've got news for ya, the goaltending isn't that bad. If it wasn't for goaltending, that 10 game win streak would have been a fantasy. 

[Stoner]

46 minutes ago, Thorny said:

What do you mean by the bolded?

We can't seriously be thinking he had 3 years to reach bubble-team status, right?

It's always a moving target, a shell game. Remember that this incessant suffering is for one sole purpose: to become a perennial contender. Built "the right way."

[JJFIVEOH]

1 minute ago, PASabreFan said:

It's always a moving target, a shell game. Remember that this incessant suffering is for one sole purpose: to become a perennial contender. Built "the right way."

How much longer do we need to suffer?

 

[SwampD]

2 minutes ago, JJFIVEOH said:

I've got news for ya, the goaltending isn't that bad. If it wasn't for goaltending, that 10 game win streak would have been a fantasy. 

You're still tryin to sell this, huh?

You should really go back and watch the streak games. There were more that a few, "Oh, my God, I can't believe that didn't go in!" moments.

All year it's been suspect. Even when we were winning.

With that said, it's not our biggest issue. We just can't score.