Recent Pegula press conf 3/26

[Stoner]

Following is based on mishearing what Terry said...

It doesn't get any clearer than that. Terry doesn't think Phil is a good coach right now. Did he think he was a good coach when he hired him?

Terry can't escape from this. You can't have an NHL coach who COULD be good. This quote better end up being, "Phil could be a good coach, but this is the NHL and he'll have to get his shot to develop somewhere else."

Are we an NHL or ECHL franchise? I'm serious.

Edited March 27, 2019 by PASabreFan

[Cascade Youth]

So why don't you bring someone in from the outside who actually knows what they're doing, Terry?  Why the resistance to handing over the reins to a proven NHL czar?  

THE PROBLEM IS YOU, TERRY.  

But also, if the only reason you can think of for holding onto a coach is that too much turnover is bad - that's not a good enough reason.

[Cascade Youth]

Agreed.  Why do the Pegulas' teams have to be development leagues for front office execs and coaches?  Can't they just hire folks who actually know what they're doing from the jump?

Edited March 27, 2019 by Cascade Youth

[LTS]

6 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

It doesn't get any clearer than that. Terry doesn't think Phil is a good coach right now. Did he think he was a good coach when he hired him?

Terry can't escape from this. You can't have an NHL coach who COULD be good. This quote better end up being, "Phil could be a good coach, but this is the NHL and he'll have to get his shot to develop somewhere else."

Are we an NHL or ECHL franchise? I'm serious.

Serious question.

If you believe Terry Pegula is incompetent, how much value should you put in the words he uses?

If you believe he used that word on purpose, does it mean you should give him more credit on his competency?

I'm not questioning your take of his wording.  It's an open question to those who believe he is incompetent or those who might side with you and indicate that he used that word on purpose.

I'm not sure which side I fall on.  The situations seem to contradict each other.  I'm looking for what other people think.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

He isn't wrong.

Phil could be a good coach.  None of us know the answer to that yet.  He needs better players, especially better at the 'system' he and JBOT want the Sabres to be playing.  

Until that happens we will not know.

So, Phil will not be fired for another 2 years, IMO.  I really believe he will have that long, at least, and possibly longer.  We better be prepared for the long haul of heavy slugging to get there.  I think we will.

[klos1963]

1 hour ago, ... said:

JFC people.  Do any of you actually think they're going to just come out and say what needs to be changed to a bunch of press people, and right now while there's still a hockey season left to play?  Who really thinks that's what they should...or would...do?  

It's enough that they're throwing the fans a bone by publickly recognizing something needs to be done ("something needs to change"), they're sympathizing with you, but they're not going to let you in on what they're really thinking and what plans they've been considering.  And that's okay.

But these people are damned if they do damned if they don't right now, and because they're not...appropriately...telling you explicitly what they are thinking, doesn't mean they don't have some ideas.

I'm not defending the Pegulas, I am arguing against being a stupid fan base.  Let's not be stupid, let's be smart, shall we?

Just to note: Pegula was once part of the stupid fan base.  He may not have learned much in the recent years.

[...]

21 minutes ago, klos1963 said:

Just to note: Pegula was once part of the stupid fan base.  He may not have learned much in the recent years.

So..?

[That Aud Smell]

can/should we have a single thread for conversations regarding content from the Pegulas' press conference?

[Ross Rhea]

IMO, TPegs will put pressure on Botts and this will end up with Housley being fired. 

 

Terry and Kim have said something needs to change. One of the 2 or both PH or JB will not be with the team opening day next year and my bet is PH will be gone.

[dudacek]

Listening to the Pegulas just reinforced my belief that the plan in Buffalo right now is the long game. It involves hiring people you believe in, delivering a consistent message and persevering through adversity by continuing to do things the right way.

That explains Dahlin, that explains Thompson, that explains Mittelstadt. And it explains Housley.

The dilemma facing the franchise is where do you draw the line between perseverance and stubbornness? How do you make the decision that your good person isn't the right person? What do you need to see to convince you that your "right way" might be the wrong way?

Great interview recently in the Athletic with former Canuck GM Mike Gillis, who has spent his time away from the game studying the world's most successful sports franchises and what sets them apart. You can see a lot of what he shared in what Botterill is trying to do.

But asked what his biggest mistake was in Vancouver, he said it was talking himself into not making personnel moves (it was implied he was talking about firing his scouting staff) that he was seeing signs that needed to be made.

If you've wholeheartedly bought into this strategy with the idea that it demands patience, deciding when the time for patience is over must be a very tough call.

Edited March 27, 2019 by dudacek

[TrueBlueGED]

Still waiting. 

[dudacek]

Posted this in another thread, but it may fit better here:

Listening to the Pegulas just reinforced my belief that the plan in Buffalo right now is the long game. It involves hiring people you believe in, delivering a consistent message and persevering through adversity by continuing to do things the right way.

That explains Dahlin, that explains Thompson, that explains Mittelstadt. And it explains Housley.

The dilemma facing the franchise is where do you draw the line between perseverance and stubbornness? How do you make the decision that your good person isn't the right person? What do you need to see to convince you that your "right way" might be the wrong way?

Great interview recently in the Athletic with former Canuck GM Mike Gillis, who has spent his time away from the game studying the world's most successful sports franchises and what sets them apart. You can see a lot of what he shared in what Botterill is trying to do.

But asked what his biggest mistake was in Vancouver, he said it was talking himself into not making personnel moves (it was implied he was talking about firing his scouting staff) that he was seeing signs that needed to be made.

If you've wholeheartedly bought into this strategy with the idea that it demands patience, deciding when the time for patience is over must be a very tough call.

[Stoner]

I screwed the pooch. I'm sorry. He said Phil could grow as a coach not that he could be a good coach. I'll edit and close the thread.

[That Aud Smell]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

The dilemma facing the franchise is where do you draw the line between perseverance and stubbornness? 

 

[Stoner]

10 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Posted this in another thread, but it may fit better here:

Listening to the Pegulas just reinforced my belief that the plan in Buffalo right now is the long game. It involves hiring people you believe in, delivering a consistent message and persevering through adversity by continuing to do things the right way.

That explains Dahlin, that explains Thompson, that explains Mittelstadt. And it explains Housley.

The dilemma facing the franchise is where do you draw the line between perseverance and stubbornness? How do you make the decision that your good person isn't the right person? What do you need to see to convince you that your "right way" might be the wrong way?

Great interview recently in the Athletic with former Canuck GM Mike Gillis, who has spent his time away from the game studying the world's most successful sports franchises and what sets them apart. You can see a lot of what he shared in what Botterill is trying to do.

But asked what his biggest mistake was in Vancouver, he said it was talking himself into not making personnel moves (it was implied he was talking about firing his scouting staff) that he was seeing signs that needed to be made.

If you've wholeheartedly bought into this strategy with the idea that it demands patience, deciding when the time for patience is over must be a very tough call.

The line would seem to have been reached after the team was sitting in first overall. Instead of a self fulfilling prophecy that good times couldn't last a few moves could have bolstered the lineup and given hope without mortgaging the future. The inaction IMHO tore a part of the group's heart out. You can only be told it's not about winning now for so many years.

[Georgia Blizzard]

9 hours ago, Kruppstahl said:

I've said it a thousand times in the context of both the Bills and Sabres, but Terry Pegula is the lowest information sports fan you will ever come across.  His level of insight and perception is horrifically basic.

That is a massive problem if you are a fan of either team and would like to see them be anything other than mediocre.

Overcoming bad ownership is almost impossible.

 

 

This is the problem !!!

[nucci]

25 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Posted this in another thread, but it may fit better here:

Listening to the Pegulas just reinforced my belief that the plan in Buffalo right now is the long game. It involves hiring people you believe in, delivering a consistent message and persevering through adversity by continuing to do things the right way.

That explains Dahlin, that explains Thompson, that explains Mittelstadt. And it explains Housley.

The dilemma facing the franchise is where do you draw the line between perseverance and stubbornness? How do you make the decision that your good person isn't the right person? What do you need to see to convince you that your "right way" might be the wrong way?

Great interview recently in the Athletic with former Canuck GM Mike Gillis, who has spent his time away from the game studying the world's most successful sports franchises and what sets them apart. You can see a lot of what he shared in what Botterill is trying to do.

But asked what his biggest mistake was in Vancouver, he said it was talking himself into not making personnel moves (it was implied he was talking about firing his scouting staff) that he was seeing signs that needed to be made.

If you've wholeheartedly bought into this strategy with the idea that it demands patience, deciding when the time for patience is over must be a very tough call.

It has to be the long game considering their short game sucks....they have owned the team for 8 years now....how much longer?

[dudacek]

22 minutes ago, nucci said:

It has to be the long game considering their short game sucks....they have owned the team for 8 years now....how much longer?

I don't think the long game started until they hired McDermott.

Stage one was the armchair GM phase: spend money. Stage two was doing what others tell you to do: Lafontaine, Bylsma, Ryan, Brandon. Stage three: "the right way" (their way, based on a personal philosophy developed through their failures in sports and their success outside of sports)

Edited March 27, 2019 by dudacek

[Formerly Allan in MD]

From the start, the Pegula's have failed to invest in expertise they clearly lack.  It's led to years of spinning wheels with both the Sabres and Bills, although the Bills wheels have appeared to dramatically slowed down.  The Sabres remain a nightmare, the spinning wheels almost off at this point.  Housley can't coach; that's clear.  Botterill is hot and cold, the latter predominating given the trade of one of the better centers in the league for a quitter, a loser, and a kid who should have been in Rochester most of the year.  Plenty of elder statesmen, with solid experience, know hockey.  Pay them for their advice and expertise instead of paying failed projects like Phil Housley.

[Radar]

13 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

As I’ve said before we have changed coaches, GMs team presidents, the scouting staff etc.   The only  thing we haven’t done is stick with a plan for more then a couple of years.  

Its time to do just that even if it ultimately doesn’t work. Constant change has already proven not to work.

While I tend to agree with this I also find agreement with Terry' s statement "something has to change". Frankly that has to be players or the coach. This team underperformed grossly after November. I think we need to stick with a plan but what plan? Whose plan? I assume the GM or owner. Housley should be on short leash. He ,I feel, has not got anywhere near the results the talent on this team should have. Playoffs? I didn't expect that. Take away that ten game stretch and we're worst than last year with more talent.

[Drunkard]

58 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Still waiting. 

Terry Pegula said that he thinks Phil could be a good coach. How much more of a case do you need? After all, no one has a monopoly on hockey knowledge.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

8 minutes ago, Formerly Allan in MD said:

From the start, the Pegula's have failed to invest in expertise they clearly lack.  It's led to years of spinning wheels with both the Sabres and Bills, although the Bills wheels have appeared to dramatically slowed down.  The Sabres remain a nightmare, the spinning wheels almost off at this point.  Housley can't coach; that's clear.  Botterill is hot and cold, the latter predominating given the trade of one of the better centers in the league for a quitter, a loser, and a kid who should have been in Rochester most of the year.  Plenty of elder statesmen, with solid experience, know hockey.  Pay them for their advice and expertise instead of paying failed projects like Phil Housley.

Says who? JBott?

You do know that he was in the NHL with the Blues right? Last half of last year. So Sabres aren't the only idiots that thought he was NHL material.

That said, I agree with you. Just thought maybe you didn't take that into consideration.

[Stoner]

It's a little odd that Terry argued for consistency in management and coaching when asked whether the frequent turnover would be a reason to stick with his current guys. He cited the Pats. Are the Pats good because Belichik has been a constant or has Belichik been a constant because the Pats are good? I would have rather heard an example of a GM/coach who struggled early on, were given a vote of confidence and then had success.

[nfreeman]

5 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

It's a little odd that Terry argued for consistency in management and coaching when asked whether the frequent turnover would be a reason to stick with his current guys. He cited the Pats. Are the Pats good because Belichik has been a constant or has Belichik been a constant because the Pats are good? I would have rather heard an example of a GM/coach who struggled early on, were given a vote of confidence and then had success.

Well, Belichik crashed and burned in his first HC job.

[Stoner]

4 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Well, Belichik crashed and burned in his first HC job.

OK, but the vote of confidence didn't come from Cleveland. Bill was 5-11 in his first season in NE, so I guess he got a vote of confidence for year 2. What if he had gone 5-11 in Year 2 instead of winning the Super Bowl?