Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, klos1963 said:

Just because you don't want to hear the teams had no talent, doesn't mean it wasn't a valid reason for not making the playoffs. It's actually an incredibly valid reason. One of the best reasons.

In the modern NHL almost nobody completely lacks talent. Granted you need some level to compete,  but it is generic like championship talent, playoff talent, or likely not playoff talent.

Posted
30 minutes ago, Torpedo Forecheck said:

In the modern NHL almost nobody completely lacks talent. Granted you need some level to compete,  but it is generic like championship talent, playoff talent, or likely not playoff talent.

The point was not enough talent to be a playoff team. Like the Sabres for the last 7 years.

Posted
1 hour ago, Torpedo Forecheck said:

Actually, I've seen and spoken to Sheldon...so I do have an good idea of his philosophy, tactics and strategy. The notion some people have on here is that someone like Tippett might get them to the playoffs may well be true. All I'm saying is that there are certain guys who win and are special at it. They are above the guys like Tippett. The talent on a team is not just on the GM either. The utilization and assessment of the players is on the coach. And, that is an underrated aspect of a hockey coach. Guys confidence and development is strongly tied to this. I see Keefe as a guy who fits this model of a modern hockey coach.

But have you spoken to Tippett? Botterill? Do have a good insight into the Sabres locker room?

Joel Quenville looked a lot like Tippett before he hit Chicago. Dallas Eakins like Keefe before Edmonton swallowed him up.

I’d say the vast majority of NHL coaches are competent enough with the right cast to work with. Our team needs more than competent, and some coaches are better than others, but it is usually synergy that allows them to succeed.

(And this is coming from a guy who wants it to be Keefe)

Posted
17 minutes ago, Torpedo Forecheck said:

Actually, I've seen and spoken to Sheldon...so I do have an good idea of his philosophy, tactics and strategy. The notion some people have on here is that someone like Tippett might get them to the playoffs may well be true. All I'm saying is that there are certain guys who win and are special at it. They are above the guys like Tippett. The talent on a team is not just on the GM either. The utilization and assessment of the players is on the coach. And, that is an underrated aspect of a hockey coach. Guys confidence and development is strongly tied to this. I see Keefe as a guy who fits this model of a modern hockey coach.

This is a good point and often overlooked. Obviously players that we signed for professional deals have a good degree of talent. That is, our FO agrees that everyone they sign has a chance (maybe small though) of making an an NHL roster someday. It’s then up to the coach to nurture this talent and put them in the right position to succeed. Or, the coach is a very big factor of whether a player has “talent” (in the way fans judge it) or not. There are exceptions though. One big one is if a team is trying to tank or the owner is overhanded in having younger, less developed players on a roster instead of more established players. 

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Posted
49 minutes ago, dudacek said:

But have you spoken to Tippett? Botterill? Do have a good insight into the Sabres locker room?

Joel Quenville looked a lot like Tippett before he hit Chicago. Dallas Eakins like Keefe before Edmonton swallowed him up.

I’d say the vast majority of NHL coaches are competent enough with the right cast to work with. Our team needs more than competent, and some coaches are better than others, but it is usually synergy that allows them to succeed.

(And this is coming from a guy who wants it to be Keefe)

I don't agree with this, there are plenty of coaches out there who could screw up a Stanley Cup Champ.

You point about competency is the one I've been making. Tippett is likely competent, may even get us to the playoffs next year. I don't know him personally. I think there are coaches who could have done better than he did with the talent he had just from looking at his record.  I want better, and Keefe would be better IMO. That's the way I see it.

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Torpedo Forecheck said:

I don't agree with this, there are plenty of coaches out there who could screw up a Stanley Cup Champ.

You point about competency is the one I've been making. Tippett is likely competent, may even get us to the playoffs next year. I don't know him personally. I think there are coaches who could have done better than he did with the talent he had just from looking at his record.  I want better, and Keefe would be better IMO. That's the way I see it.

Which year/roster specifically are you looking at that you feel Tippett could have gotten more out of them? 

I want Keefe as well ftr. 

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Which year/roster specifically are you looking at that you feel Tippett could have gotten more out of them? 

I want Keefe as well ftr. 

Okay. From memory, you can look it up but I'm fairly certain. He had some teams in Dallas about 2004-05-06 that won 50 games and had well over 100 pts. They lost in the first round three years in a row , including 4-1 to an aging Avs team( No Forsberg, No Roy) a couple times. As a matter of fact, Quenneville was the  coach who beat him and I consider him a next level coach. Dallas was loaded with Modano, Morrow, Guerin, Lehtinen, Zubov etc.) and finished with about 20 more pts as a team. I need to get back to work. My point isn't that Tippett is a bad coach, playoff coach, I have no belief that down the road when the team is a contender (if it is) that he gets you through the playoffs. Nothing screams special to me. Good chatting and sharing.

Edited by Torpedo Forecheck
Posted

@Torpedo Forecheck You are pretty much doing what I said though, having strong opinions largely based on perceptions created from quite a distance (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Others have looked at the same evidence and created the opposite perception of Tippett, and could have had the same perception of Quenville based on his results in St. Louis and Colorado.

Posted

Keefe, as a rookie HC, would be a good fit on a more veteran team with established leadership.   Kind of like how Cooper fit in Tampa when he was hired. 

Tippett would be good for a young immature team trying to figure out how to win in the NHL... similar to Babcock in TOR.

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, pi2000 said:

Keefe, as a rookie HC, would be a good fit on a more veteran team with established leadership.   Kind of like how Cooper fit in Tampa when he was hired. 

Tippett would be good for a young immature team trying to figure out how to win in the NHL... similar to Babcock in TOR.

Just my opinion but....then there's the best of both worlds....Gronberg. 

When talking about SHL all we hear is that they are a level below the AHL in comparison. Yet, this guy can take lower level than AHL players and sprinkle in some NHL players and put them up against the best that the rest of the world wants to offer up and come away with the GOLD. This is coaching a mix of vets and younger players and putting them up against the Eichel and McD's and Hughes and Reinharts of the world and not the Spokane Chiefs or Beauts.

But, unlike some, I think I'd be happy with any of the three as long as the Sabres find a way to WIN.

Here's a recent article...

 

https://www.diebytheblade.com/2019/4/23/18511391/buffalo-sabres-rikard-gronborg-is-a-risk-worth-taking-botterill-coaching-search

Edited by MakeSabresGrr8Again
Posted
4 hours ago, pi2000 said:

Keefe, as a rookie HC, would be a good fit on a more veteran team with established leadership.   Kind of like how Cooper fit in Tampa when he was hired. 

Tippett would be good for a young immature team trying to figure out how to win in the NHL... similar to Babcock in TOR.

I agree with Pi.  Something must be wrong with my life.

On the Day of Reason, no less.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
10 hours ago, Torpedo Forecheck said:

 The talent on a team is not just on the GM either. The utilization and assessment of the players is on the coach. And, that is an underrated aspect of a hockey coach. 

It shouldn't be underrated in Buffalo by now.  Our problem with this goes back to at least Lindy.

  • Sad 1
Posted

So the board is split ..

Keefe ... ZOMG he has no NHL head coaching experience! We don’t want another one of those!

Tippett ... ZOMG he’s just an old NHL retread that hasn’t really won anything. He won’t relate to the young team we have!

Gronberg ... ZOMG he has no NHL experience at all! He won’t be able to adapt and do well on NA ice.

So if it ends up being one of those ... ⅔ will hate the pick ?

Posted
27 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

So the board is split ..

Keefe ... ZOMG he has no NHL head coaching experience! We don’t want another one of those!

Tippett ... ZOMG he’s just an old NHL retread that hasn’t really won anything. He won’t relate to the young team we have!

Gronberg ... ZOMG he has no NHL experience at all! He won’t be able to adapt and do well on NA ice.

So if it ends up being one of those ... ⅔ will hate the pick ?

I'm of the mindset that if we get any one of those 3 i'll be happy, even throw in Todd Richards. But fans gotta realize & i'm sure they do, that theres only so many "good" coaches available to hire. Most currently have jobs, so if you can get one of these guys that has something going for him, whether it be experience or being an up & comer, that's pretty much all you can hope for imo.

I'm in the camp of pretty much anyone but Taylor. But for as much as i'd like to know already who the next coach will be, i'd rather Botts take his time & do his due diligence & get the right guy. I still refresh this thread everyday hoping for an update tho ?

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Zamboni said:

So the board is split ..

Keefe ... ZOMG he has no NHL head coaching experience! We don’t want another one of those!

Tippett ... ZOMG he’s just an old NHL retread that hasn’t really won anything. He won’t relate to the young team we have!

Gronberg ... ZOMG he has no NHL experience at all! He won’t be able to adapt and do well on NA ice.

So if it ends up being one of those ... ⅔ will hate the pick ?

Did you read the article I posted?

He doesn't have NHL HC experience....but he has coached NHL players in International play and coach against them too.

He also has played and coached in NA and should have no problem adjusting. He is a dual American-Swede citizen and married to an American, so no language barrier.

I won't hate any pick if success comes with it.

Some people feel that Keefe will get his opportunity and be a winner....that we need to move on him and be ahead of the curve. This is the same way I feel about Gronberg. Gronberg is known to be a great communicator and has a Masters degree in Management and Leadership from St.Cloud State, played hockey in the US (Dman), coached in the US and Sweden, scouted for Sweden all over the world. Back-to-back Golds and medals in 7 of last 10 yrs as HC/asst coach. IMO he seems more qualified and the real question, which I don't think will be an issue, is that 82g season lacking in his resume. 

Edited by MakeSabresGrr8Again
Posted
2 hours ago, Zamboni said:

So the board is split ..

Keefe ... ZOMG he has no NHL head coaching experience! We don’t want another one of those!

Tippett ... ZOMG he’s just an old NHL retread that hasn’t really won anything. He won’t relate to the young team we have!

Gronberg ... ZOMG he has no NHL experience at all! He won’t be able to adapt and do well on NA ice.

So if it ends up being one of those ... ⅔ will hate the pick ?

JBOTs job is on the line.  If he's smart he'll choose the most experienced guy willing to come here who has a history of quickly turning around bad teams.   He doesn't have the luxury of giving a Sheldon Keefe a season or two to adjust to the NHL. 

Tippett is the only choice that makes sense.

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
6 hours ago, pi2000 said:

JBOTs job is on the line.  If he's smart he'll choose the most experienced guy willing to come here who has a history of quickly turning around bad teams.   He doesn't have the luxury of giving a Sheldon Keefe a season or two to adjust to the NHL. 

Tippett is the only choice that makes sense.

It depends on "what" you believe is sensible and what success is.

Here's another thing to think about....try taking a mostly new roster every year or two, implement a system, train those players to play within the system, compete against the best in the world, and still have success doing it. 

Best case scenario.....Tippett as HC, Gronberg as Associate Coach, and Keefe as Asst Coach. Go for the gusto.

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, pi2000 said:

JBOTs job is on the line.  If he's smart he'll choose the most experienced guy willing to come here who has a history of quickly turning around bad teams.   He doesn't have the luxury of giving a Sheldon Keefe a season or two to adjust to the NHL. 

Tippett is the only choice that makes sense.

My sons former teammate and buddy plays for the Sharks. He lives in Denver now and spent Weds. evening hanging out at his apartment with this guy. My son played against Sheldon in Juniors and he asked him if he knew Sheldon Keefe. The sharks player responded, "oh yeah, everyone knows him, he's gonna be a superstar real soon!"

So you are correct, it is the only choice that makes sense for the Sabres. Hire the guy who's like a dozen other guys.sarcasm

What is it they say on 2BD Billsy?

Edited by Torpedo Forecheck
Posted

If you take a step back and really examine the situation, do you continue to believe that there is "the coach" out there based solely on either being the up and comer, or the re-tread, or the guy from another league?

People talk about the "great coaches".  Who are those "great coaches?"

Every "great coach" has failed and continues to fail.  I would argue that the "great coach" is not really a great coach but the right coach at the right time.  I would define a great coach as a coach who can take ANY mediocre team and make them better.  A great coach is one who can join a team and bring improvements to them immediately and then continue to keep them at a high level despite adversity in the roster.  Great coaches should last longer than 10 years with a team.

There are coaches who are bad.  But there are a lot of coaches who are good enough to be the right coach at the right time.  I'm not sure how many coaches are truly "great".

A few years ago people were so upset about missing out on Babcock.  He was the answer for the Sabres.  Now, a few years later, people are waiting to see if he sticks in Toronto. Is he a great coach?

Is a coach who wins 3 Cups with a single, very talented team, a great coach?  They were probably the right coach at the right time.  Because that coach, as soon as the roster stopped producing, was fired.  He hadn't seen the Cup before that... will he this year in Florida?

The up and comer might be the next great coach.  Housley was widely lauded as an up and coming coach as well.  The praise was higher than the criticism, to be certain.  He flamed out here.  

The Sabres need the right coach.  It probably won't be a "great coach".

  • Like (+1) 4
Posted
36 minutes ago, LTS said:

If you take a step back and really examine the situation, do you continue to believe that there is "the coach" out there based solely on either being the up and comer, or the re-tread, or the guy from another league?

People talk about the "great coaches".  Who are those "great coaches?"

Every "great coach" has failed and continues to fail.  I would argue that the "great coach" is not really a great coach but the right coach at the right time.  I would define a great coach as a coach who can take ANY mediocre team and make them better.  A great coach is one who can join a team and bring improvements to them immediately and then continue to keep them at a high level despite adversity in the roster.  Great coaches should last longer than 10 years with a team.

There are coaches who are bad.  But there are a lot of coaches who are good enough to be the right coach at the right time.  I'm not sure how many coaches are truly "great".

A few years ago people were so upset about missing out on Babcock.  He was the answer for the Sabres.  Now, a few years later, people are waiting to see if he sticks in Toronto. Is he a great coach?

Is a coach who wins 3 Cups with a single, very talented team, a great coach?  They were probably the right coach at the right time.  Because that coach, as soon as the roster stopped producing, was fired.  He hadn't seen the Cup before that... will he this year in Florida?

The up and comer might be the next great coach.  Housley was widely lauded as an up and coming coach as well.  The praise was higher than the criticism, to be certain.  He flamed out here.  

The Sabres need the right coach.  It probably won't be a "great coach".

Well said. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...