Ralph Krueger to meet the Media Wednesday June 5th 10am

[LTS]

9 hours ago, bunomatic said:

Yeah for sure. I guess for me its just following up an inexperienced coach with another. I've read some good things about Ralph so I'm excited to see this play out.

All the evidence that I see is beginning to point to there being a problem with the $10M face of the franchise.  He needs someone to somehow change his mindset into one that will help him be a leader and be successful at hockey.

It seems like Krueger has a great shot at being that guy.  I'm not sure an experienced coach necessarily would be the right person to do it.  Hell, it might be that some of them don't want to even try.  

At the same time, I think to myself, if Eichel were that big of a problem, how come we haven't heard about it from the media yet.  You'd think someone would let it slip.  

[Sabres Fan in NS]

3 minutes ago, LTS said:

All the evidence that I see is beginning to point to there being a problem with the $10M face of the franchise.  He needs someone to somehow change his mindset into one that will help him be a leader and be successful at hockey.

It seems like Krueger has a great shot at being that guy.  I'm not sure an experienced coach necessarily would be the right person to do it.  Hell, it might be that some of them don't want to even try.  

At the same time, I think to myself, if Eichel were that big of a problem, how come we haven't heard about it from the media yet.  You'd think someone would let it slip.  

I think the problem with Jack is that he is just a kid.  A very spoiled kid that has always had things his way.  He needs a grandfatherly mentor to get him out of that mindset and I hope that the new coach will have a better idea as how best to do that.  IMO, that is the #1 reason why coach was hired.

Edited June 13, 2019 by New Scotland (NS)
typing skills ... still lacking

[darksabre]

2 minutes ago, LTS said:

All the evidence that I see is beginning to point to there being a problem with the $10M face of the franchise.  He needs someone to somehow change his mindset into one that will help him be a leader and be successful at hockey.

It seems like Krueger has a great shot at being that guy.  I'm not sure an experienced coach necessarily would be the right person to do it.  Hell, it might be that some of them don't want to even try.  

At the same time, I think to myself, if Eichel were that big of a problem, how come we haven't heard about it from the media yet.  You'd think someone would let it slip.  

I think Jack was a noticeably more mature in a lot of his post-game stuff this year, and I think that likely reflects the added responsibility he was carrying this season. Despite all the losing I thought his attitude was better. He was much better with the reporters, there was a lot less eye-rolling.

Hopefully a leadership core can develop under Kreuger out of all these kids. Lord knows we need to move on from Bogo and Okposo wearing A's.

[dudacek]

21 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

I think the problem with Jack is that he is just a kid.  A very spoiled kid that has always had things his way.  He needs a grandfatherly mentor to get him out of that mindset and I hope that the new coach will have a better idea as how best to do that.  IMO, that is the #1 reason why coach was hired.

Agree. I also have seen signs that Jack recognizes he needs to be better and is seeking out answers. He's ready to listen.

Maturity is real thing? Who knew?

[Stoner]

Men in their 20s as "kids"? I don't buy it.

Also — the negativity! Dear me!

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Just now, PASabreFan said:

Men in their 20s as "kids"? I don't buy it.

Also — the negativity! Dear me!

Are you the same at 50 (just a guess) as you were in your very early 20s?  I certainly am not.

And who is being negative?  We are simply saying that Jack has some growing to do, which is pretty evident.

There is a great sign in front of a school on our way to our new house in Prospect Bay ... it reads - 'Change is inevitable.  Growth is optional.'

[darksabre]

3 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Men in their 20s as "kids"? I don't buy it.

Also — the negativity! Dear me!

There is a lot of research that shows most men don't really "grow up" until their mid to late 20s. There's a lot of evidence in the criminal justice community that says men tend to "age out" of crime around that time, and I have to imagine there are plenty of men who aren't criminals who don't age out of certain behaviors until well into their 20s.

[dudacek]

6 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Men in their 20s as "kids"? I don't buy it.

Also — the negativity! Dear me!

My goodness, you really are as old as they say. ?

[Stoner]

I've been chuckling to myself for the past several days as the "kid" comment cropped up here in the midst of the 75th anniversary of D-Day. Enough said.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Just now, PASabreFan said:

I've been chuckling to myself for the past several days as the "kid" comment cropped up here in the midst of the 75th anniversary of D-Day. Enough said.

IMO, the 'kids' that landed on D-Day were mid 20's + (the average age of a combat soldier in WWII was 26) and battle hardened vets.  The British and Canadians were vets of a 5 year war at the time.  The US soldiers were at it for 2.5.

Sorry, but there is a huge difference.

[WildCard]

14 minutes ago, darksabre said:

There is a lot of research that shows most men don't really "grow up" until their mid to late 20s. There's a lot of evidence in the criminal justice community that says men tend to "age out" of crime around that time, and I have to imagine there are plenty of men who aren't criminals who don't age out of certain behaviors until well into their 20s.

You telling me I only have one more year to rob a bank? I can feel my internal clock ticking right now

Edited June 13, 2019 by WildCard

[TrueBlueGED]

23 minutes ago, WildCard said:

You telling me I only have one more year to rob a bank? I can feel my internal clock ticking right now

I have full confidence in your ability to be an outlier ?

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, WildCard said:

You telling me I only have one more year to rob a bank? I can feel my internal clock ticking right now

 

1 hour ago, TrueBlueGED said:

I have full confidence in your ability to be an outlier ?

Well played gents.  Well played.

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, LTS said:

All the evidence that I see is beginning to point to there being a problem with the $10M face of the franchise.  He needs someone to somehow change his mindset into one that will help him be a leader and be successful at hockey.

It seems like Krueger has a great shot at being that guy.  I'm not sure an experienced coach necessarily would be the right person to do it.  Hell, it might be that some of them don't want to even try.  

At the same time, I think to myself, if Eichel were that big of a problem, how come we haven't heard about it from the media yet.  You'd think someone would let it slip.  

ALL the evidence?  Seems a bit of an exaggeration, especially when combined with your final paragraph.

Eichel's improved as a player each season & IMHO has improved as a teammate & leader each season as well.  I've no reason to expect any of those trends to change.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

6 hours ago, WildCard said:

You telling me I only have one more year to rob a bank? I can feel my internal clock ticking right now

Joe's daddy was a much older bankrobber  ... ?

Just make sure you never hurt nobody ... ?

[Thorner]

8 hours ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

IMO, the 'kids' that landed on D-Day were mid 20's + (the average age of a combat soldier in WWII was 26) and battle hardened vets.  The British and Canadians were vets of a 5 year war at the time.  The US soldiers were at it for 2.5.

Sorry, but there is a huge difference.

The life expectancy in the 1940's means that those at 26 were almost middle age. Maybe things are just a little bit different nowadays? 

So, to the bolded, I agree.

[LTS]

9 hours ago, darksabre said:

I think Jack was a noticeably more mature in a lot of his post-game stuff this year, and I think that likely reflects the added responsibility he was carrying this season. Despite all the losing I thought his attitude was better. He was much better with the reporters, there was a lot less eye-rolling.

Hopefully a leadership core can develop under Kreuger out of all these kids. Lord knows we need to move on from Bogo and Okposo wearing A's.

I agree with his post game commentary.  I think he had his games where he was all in as well.  And then he had his games where he was not.  I don't have a problem with Okposo honestly. Bogosian, I'm ambivalent.

6 hours ago, Taro T said:

ALL the evidence?  Seems a bit of an exaggeration, especially when combined with your final paragraph.

Eichel's improved as a player each season & IMHO has improved as a teammate & leader each season as well.  I've no reason to expect any of those trends to change.

I don't think it really is.  Last year, there was a point when Okposo made a comment about some players on the team being too high for the wins and too low for the losses.  There have been other comments made about not getting too jacked up for wins and not letting the losses sting so much.  I attribute much of that to Eichel as his play during the good times last year was noticeably better than his play outside of it.  There are a litany of other things that get brought up over the past two years that also lead me to believe this.  If I were arguing a case in a courtroom I'd pull it all together.  But that's not the case.

I am surprised nothing has come up, but that doesn't mean it's not there.  I heard about some of the issues, but not specifics from someone who was in the locker room two years ago (not last year).  But knowing that and hearing some of the statements last year it seems to align.  That said, I heard stuff about ROR from someone in the locker room as well, and that certainly never came to light, but yet he was moved for a pile of scraps.  Hmm.

[#freejame]

I was deployed at 20, 21, and 22. I was a kid. Change really started occurring at 23 and by the time I was 25 I finally felt more like an adult. The D-Day argument is stupid. Especially if you’ve never been in a combat zone with 18-22 year olds and 23-28 year olds. Doesn’t matter the rank or time in service. There’s a massive difference. 

[LGR4GM]

On 6/13/2019 at 9:43 AM, PASabreFan said:

I've been chuckling to myself for the past several days as the "kid" comment cropped up here in the midst of the 75th anniversary of D-Day. Enough said.

Are you a baby boomer? 

[Stoner]

OK. How do we feel about a society that sends children to fight its wars? What kind of people are we? The answer's pretty obvious. We view 18-year-olds as men and women. Jack's still a kid, so he can't be expected to be a good hockey captain yet, but men years younger than he is volunteered to go to war right after Pearl Harbor. Sorry, not buying it. Times have changed. And please don't suggest to me that in World War II there was some kind of JV that watched and learned while the older "men" fought.

[LGR4GM]

Just now, PASabreFan said:

OK. How do we feel about a society that sends children to fight its wars? What kind of people are we? The answer's pretty obvious. We view 18-year-olds as men and women. Jack's still a kid, so he can't be expected to be a good hockey captain yet, but men years younger than he is volunteered to go to war right after Pearl Harbor. Sorry, not buying it. Times have changed. And please don't suggest to me that in World War II there was some kind of JV that watched and learned while the older "men" fought.

So yes to being a baby boomer?

[Stoner]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Are you a baby boomer? 

No, I missed out. And I'm not a Gen X-er either. (Some have suggested the idea of generations is a marketing invention and they don't have any real meaning.)

[LGR4GM]

Just trying to place the context of your thinking. 

I'd note that fighting on D-Day and leading are not the same thing. 

[#freejame]

11 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

OK. How do we feel about a society that sends children to fight its wars? What kind of people are we? The answer's pretty obvious. We view 18-year-olds as men and women. Jack's still a kid, so he can't be expected to be a good hockey captain yet, but men years younger than he is volunteered to go to war right after Pearl Harbor. Sorry, not buying it. Times have changed. And please don't suggest to me that in World War II there was some kind of JV that watched and learned while the older "men" fought.

I don’t have any issue with an 18 year old making decisions for themselves. But that doesn’t mean they’re developed and an adult. And nobody said anything about a JV squad. 18 year olds are more than capable of fighting a war. But they don’t always know what’s in their best interest or the best interest of others. That’s why there’s no NCOs who are 18 years old. It takes experience to lead. The people who think they’re an adult at 18 typically are the least mature. That goes all the way through college ages imo. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

This discussion is pointless.  I hate wars.

@PASabreFan, maybe I'm wrong, but the last time that I recall that the vast majority of 18 and 19 year old kids were fighting a war was Vietnam.  And the vast majority of them were drafted.

I think it is criminal for a society to send kids, including those that are 18, or 19, to fight a war.  People think of child soldiers as under 10, or something.  I don't think that way.

Edited June 16, 2019 by New Scotland (NS)