Official Ralph Krueger named Sabres Head Coach

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Maybe. I generally like the hire, but doesn't every coach say this before they actually have to do anything? Every new hire by every team in every sport talks about putting players in a position to succeed or equivalent cliche. 

Bylsma also structured his gameplan to fit his team. 

[Weave]

25 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Maybe. I generally like the hire, but doesn't every coach say this before they actually have to do anything? Every new hire by every team in every sport talks about putting players in a position to succeed or equivalent cliche. 

It seems to me that Housley (and Botteril at first) was saying that they were implementing a system, and by inference they were forcing that system on the players we had.  It’s a process, so to speak.

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

Beane was not the GM during the Mahommes draft.  The trade of the Mahommes pick was the work of Whaley and Coach McD. 

The Bills cleaned house over the past 2 years.  The first year they made it to the playoff despite cleaning house because they were well coached and some things worked in their favor (tie breakers).  They stock piled picks in order to draft two hopeful franchise cornerstones - Allen and Edmunds.   The second years' house cleaning essentially cleaned their books and provided cap space.  It left them they had no OL, no WRs, and no QB experience to start the season, hence the 6 win season.  

Beane just had his second draft and is now on the clock.  I am expecting 10 wins and playoffs this year.  If Allen progresses from were he ended last season they can do it.   If not we will be stuck in the middle once again. 

I generally agree with all of this, although I will point out, regarding Mahomes, that passing on him was McD's call, not Whaley's, and that McD is pretty much running the show at OBD -- so I think he owns that decision, which looks like a bad one.

My real point though was that there is quite a bit of triumphalism going on regarding the Bills and their management -- much more than a 6-10 record and a bunch of questionable decisions would seem to justify.

[Weave]

22 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Bylsma also structured his gameplan to fit his team. 

And was crucified for it even though the new guy is getting acceptance for the same.

I was not one of those that criticized Bylsma for implementing a system based on the players on the roster. I was in the extreme minority though.

[TrueBlueGED]

12 minutes ago, Weave said:

And was crucified for it even though the new guy is getting acceptance for the same.

I was not one of those that criticized Bylsma for implementing a system based on the players on the roster. I was in the extreme minority though.

I dunno. His system was the same thing he did in Pittsburgh, so I'm not sure he specifically tailored it for the roster here.

[That Aud Smell]

6 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

I dunno. His system was the same thing he did in Pittsburgh, so I'm not sure he specifically tailored it for the roster here.

Small ice and grind them beshes down?

[Weave]

12 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

I dunno. His system was the same thing he did in Pittsburgh, so I'm not sure he specifically tailored it for the roster here.

That may very well be, but the perception was the same as what the new guy is saying.  It’s the difference response here that I am commenting on, not the intricacies of Bylsma’s gameplan.

[Thorner]

47 minutes ago, Weave said:

That may very well be, but the perception was the same as what the new guy is saying.  It’s the difference response here that I am commenting on, not the intricacies of Bylsma’s gameplan.

Bylsma certainly seemed to be implementing a gameplan that he believed gave the team the best chance of immediate success.

Krueger here seems to represent the tailoring of Bylsma, the motivation ability of Nolan, and the fresh face/non-retread perception of a Housley. 

Edited May 28, 2019 by Thorny

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

And was crucified for it even though the new guy is getting acceptance for the same.

I was not one of those that criticized Bylsma for implementing a system based on the players on the roster. I was in the extreme minority though.

No.  He was crucified for managing to say "our forecheck is dump and chase" via 6 whiteboards & approximately 45 minutes of clarifications.

We won't even go into the complexity he added to "chip the puck off the boards to a ridiculously long stretch pass" so said pass receiver can then dump the puck in and begin the turnover process anew.

[dudacek]

I am generally forgiving of coaches.

I have not forgiven Bylsma. ***** that guy.

[dudacek]

Re: Botterill May have preferred Tippett to Krueger.

if the reported Krueger interviews/accepting the job timelines didn’t get you off the fence, this might: Lebrun reporting Tippett signed in Edmonton for three years at less than $3 million per. Krueger got nearly $4 million for the same term two weeks earlier.

I could see Because Buffalo believing Tippett rejected Buffalo to take $3 million less to coach the Leafs, or the Bruins.

But the Oilers? Botterill got his man.

[#freejame]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

No.  He was crucified for managing to say "our forecheck is dump and chase" via 6 whiteboards & approximately 45 minutes of clarifications.

We won't even go into the complexity he added to "chip the puck off the boards to a ridiculously long stretch pass" so said pass receiver can then dump the puck in and begin the turnover process anew.

To be fair, having coached less skilled hockey teams before, being able to execute a good dump and chase and knowing how to successfully chip the puck out of the zone and hit stretch passes is absolutely imperative. It’s not fun hockey and it’s not good hockey, but sometimes it’s the only hockey a team can play based on rosters. 

[Taro T]

6 minutes ago, #freejame said:

To be fair, having coached less skilled hockey teams before, being able to execute a good dump and chase and knowing how to successfully chip the puck out of the zone and hit stretch passes is absolutely imperative. It’s not fun hockey and it’s not good hockey, but sometimes it’s the only hockey a team can play based on rosters. 

But HE DIDN'T NEED 47 WHITEBOARDS TO TELL THEM TO DUMP & CHASE.

If one is running a system geared on making simple quick plays, don't overcomplicate the whole ####ing  thing forcing it to function reaaaalllly slowly.  He gave them a system that they might have been able to pull off if he'd've kept it simple.  He couldn't do that.  He had to prove how smart he was by making dump and chase difficult.  It isn't.  There's a reason his nickname was "Goober" and it wasn't his love of all things Planters.

[Weave]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

No.  He was crucified for managing to say "our forecheck is dump and chase" via 6 whiteboards & approximately 45 minutes of clarifications.

We won't even go into the complexity he added to "chip the puck off the boards to a ridiculously long stretch pass" so said pass receiver can then dump the puck in and begin the turnover process anew.

Look at those rosters and tell me he should have employed different tactics. I have no desire to debate his gameplan, but the points given a demonstrably lesser roster shows it.

And again, the point isn't the details of his gameplan, it was that we recognized he was gameplanning down to the roster and we criticized him for doing so.  We got a taste of gameplanning for what we want. not what we had with Housley.  The results were not an improvement.

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

But HE DIDN'T NEED 47 WHITEBOARDS TO TELL THEM TO DUMP & CHASE.

If one is running a system geared on making simple quick plays, don't overcomplicate the whole ####ing  thing forcing it to function reaaaalllly slowly.  He gave them a system that they might have been able to pull off if he'd've kept it simple.  He couldn't do that.  He had to prove how smart he was by making dump and chase difficult.  It isn't.  There's a reason his nickname was "Goober" and it wasn't his love of all things Planters.

The point had nothing to do with his white boards.  He was not a good coach.  Not even a mediocre one.  He couldn't lead anyone.  That doesn't change the point I was making even a small amount.

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, Weave said:

Look at those rosters and tell me he should have employed different tactics. I have no desire to debate his gameplan, but the points given a demonstrably lesser roster shows it.

And again, the point isn't the details of his gameplan, it was that we recognized he was gameplanning down to the roster and we criticized him for doing so.  We got a taste of gameplanning for what we want. not what we had with Housley.  The results were not an improvement.

With all due respect, no, the point is that he took a reasonably good idea - putting in a low skill game plan for a team that was skill challenged; but implemented it horribly.  Again, it doesn't take a lot of whiteboarding to install what he was supposedly installing - the LA Kings East.  If it takes more than 2 whiteboards it's too complex for any team, but especially a young team.

The team's #1 D-man during Bylsma's tenure has often been critcized for lack of hockey IQ.  How does overly complex systemizing work to his strengths?  It doesn't.

[dudacek]

8 minutes ago, Taro T said:

But HE DIDN'T NEED 47 WHITEBOARDS TO TELL THEM TO DUMP & CHASE.

If one is running a system geared on making simple quick plays, don't overcomplicate the whole ####ing  thing forcing it to function reaaaalllly slowly.  He gave them a system that they might have been able to pull off if he'd've kept it simple.  He couldn't do that.  He had to prove how smart he was by making dump and chase difficult.  It isn't.  There's a reason his nickname was "Goober" and it wasn't his love of all things Planters.

This is why I liked what Krueger said about using what the analytics tell him, but not sharing the mechanics of it with the players.

By and large hockey players aren’t there for their book learnin’

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

This is why I liked what Krueger said about using what the analytics tell him, but not sharing the mechanics of it with the players.

By and large hockey players aren’t there for their book learnin’

Exactly.

[Weave]

12 minutes ago, Taro T said:

With all due respect, no, the point is that he took a reasonably good idea - putting in a low skill game plan for a team that was skill challenged; but implemented it horribly.  Again, it doesn't take a lot of whiteboarding to install what he was supposedly installing - the LA Kings East.  If it takes more than 2 whiteboards it's too complex for any team, but especially a young team.

The team's #1 D-man during Bylsma's tenure has often been critcized for lack of hockey IQ.  How does overly complex systemizing work to his strengths?  It doesn't.

 

Considering it was my point to make, I'm pretty sure I know what the point was.

And I think there is a good bit of re-history here.  There were plenty of debates about him installing a system geared for the bulk of the team instead of one geared for a couple of high skill guys.

[Taro T]

21 minutes ago, Weave said:

 

The point had nothing to do with his white boards.  He was not a good coach.  Not even a mediocre one.  He couldn't lead anyone.  That doesn't change the point I was making even a small amount.

How does it not change your point?  You stated (paraphrasing here) that Krueger & Bylsma both plan(ned) to implement systems that worked to the players strengths, but that Goober got "crucified" for it & Krueger (at least for now) gets praise for that plan.

Goober got crucified for it because he was VERY bad at it.  Had he been able to get them to play Kings hockey, his boring as #### system would've gotten a pass because they'd've been winning.  

If Krueger ends up as bad a coach & leader as Bylsma was, his honeymoon will also be short.

[Weave]

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

How does it not change your point?  You stated (paraphrasing here) that Krueger & Bylsma both plan(ned) to implement systems that worked to the players strengths, but that Goober got "crucified" for it & Krueger (at least for now) gets praise for that plan.

Goober got crucified for it because he was VERY bad at it.  Had he been able to get them to play Kings hockey, his boring as #### system would've gotten a pass because they'd've been winning.  

If Krueger ends up as bad a coach & leader as Bylsma was, his honeymoon will also be short.

 

True, he got crucified because he was bad.  A good part of the criticism was that his choice of system was bad.  It was both.  The long pass and dump and chase were vilified every  bit as much as his coaching methods.

 

And they weren't winnoing with any method.  Those teams were terribly stocked.

Edited May 29, 2019 by Weave

[Pimlach]

4 hours ago, nfreeman said:

I generally agree with all of this, although I will point out, regarding Mahomes, that passing on him was McD's call, not Whaley's, and that McD is pretty much running the show at OBD -- so I think he owns that decision, which looks like a bad one.

My real point though was that there is quite a bit of triumphalism going on regarding the Bills and their management -- much more than a 6-10 record and a bunch of questionable decisions would seem to justify.

Yes, I also think that McDermott ran the draft.  So McD and 14 other GMs messed up for not taking the best QB in to come around in quite awhile.  

 

I think the Bills are still a major work in progress but I think McD has done well to win 9 and 6 games with the rosters he had.  Beane has much more to prove.  This year will tell us a lot and much hinges on Allen’s play, no different than any other starting QB.  

[#freejame]

45 minutes ago, Taro T said:

But HE DIDN'T NEED 47 WHITEBOARDS TO TELL THEM TO DUMP & CHASE.

If one is running a system geared on making simple quick plays, don't overcomplicate the whole ####ing  thing forcing it to function reaaaalllly slowly.  He gave them a system that they might have been able to pull off if he'd've kept it simple.  He couldn't do that.  He had to prove how smart he was by making dump and chase difficult.  It isn't.  There's a reason his nickname was "Goober" and it wasn't his love of all things Planters.

That’s because cool coaches write right on the glass

[Taro T]

26 minutes ago, Weave said:

 

True, he got crucified because he was bad.  A good part of the criticism was that his choice of system was bad.  It was both.  The long pass and dump and chase were vilified every  bit as much as his coaching meththeods.

 

And they weren't winnoing with any method.  Those teams were terribly stocked.

But, in large part, the criticism he got for the system was because it was self defeating.  

He had a young squad and by and large it was a losing squad.  Pretty sure we'd all agree on that.  But by running an overly complex chip & chase out of the zone & then dump & chase into the offensive end he was getting the worst of all worlds - the players weren't particularly improving, they weren't winning, & they weren't entertaining.  If at least 1 of those were happening maybe he'd've gotten some slack & had at least 2 been true he would've gotten slack.  But none were happening.

Had he simplified the system, they would've been quicker & almost definitely better.  Had he let anyone besides Eichel carry the puck into the zone, they probably wouldn't have been winning but they would likely have been improving & most likely would've been more entertaining.

And IIRC, prior to seeing the Bylsma Sabres, people here were excited that Bylsma was going to set up a system geared to his players strengths.  To say there's a disconnect between how people now view Bylsma & how they're becoming optimistic (cautious thoughit may be) about Krueger's plan to plan to his players strengths is overlooking the elephant in the room that Goober was a goober.

 

The Sabres had another coach that adjusted his system to fit the players strengths.  His name was Lindy Ruff & he, for the most part, was successful.  Here's to hoping Krueger has far more Ruff in him than Bylsma.

Edited May 29, 2019 by Taro T

[Weave]

I’ll end with, I know the criticism of Bylsma was heavily centered on his decision to play a system that would suit his poorly skilled roster because biggest support argument for Housley was that he was unbridling the team and that they would learn the system while the team was restructured to meet that system.  

The rest was piled on top of that most basic criticism.

[SwampD]

If only Bylsma had a Quick in net. He’d look like a genius.