Krueger wanted Chris Taylor "gone": Paul Hamilton says

[OhMyDahlin]

3 hours ago, bob_sauve28 said:

I loved Chris Taylor like a brother! And mean old RK just got rid of him, murdered his career!!1 

"Murdered his career?"

He literally got a promotion from the AHL to the NHL. Lol.

[OhMyDahlin]

5 hours ago, Pimlach said:

They all played for Rochester, under Taylor.  
 

Olofsson had 30 goals in 66 games under Taylor.  
Bryson played 61 games for Taylor last year 

Borgen played 2 full seasons and part of a third in Rochester, under Taylor.  
 

Taylor was one of the few bright spots of Boterill regime as he was key in re-establishing our AHL team.  

 

 

 

Olofsson stepped in and did that because of his development in Sweden, playing against men for years.

Bryson and Borgen spent significant time on top-end NCAA programs, then both came to the Amerks and looked great from the jump.

I'm not trying to crap on the guy, I'd take him over Krueger at this point but, again, he couldn't win a playoff game with good teams.

Edited March 8, 2021 by OhMyDahlin

[DarthEbriate]

53 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

I think if McCabe and Borgen come back, and look like they did before the injuries, we will be much better.  
Dahlin played pretty good hockey with Borgen.  Risto and McCabe looked good as well.  

If Bryson continues to play well, Borgen comes back and settles Dahlin into a second pair, and Ristolainen starts looking like pre-COVID Risto by the end of March...  we'll feel better about the defense going into next season.  That should put Davidson and Irwin back on the Taxi Squad where they belong. Sadly, McCabe may never don a Sabres sweater again. Joker is the wild card, as always.

The problems remain no goalie until Ullmark returns, and a stagnant-by-design offense that relies on a power play but draws no penalties.

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Drag0nDan said:

Nobody wanted montour when their teams were healthy.  I think this is a large reason they considered non-tendering him.  Almost 4 million for a bottom pair defenseman is a lot.  They could possibly trade him now to a team in need of help on the blue line, but his value is pretty minimal at this point on an expiring contract.   Miller has another year at almost 4 million so we'll likely see him blasting slapshots from the wall til at least the offseason.  

The team was bad with Ullmark, but they're a LOT worse without him.  I would've liked to see another goalie brought in as well, but Hall was supposed to help the offense and hasn't.  Honestly I think hutton somehow got worse.  

 

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Montour isn’t the issue.  The RK system destroys offensive D.  Put Montour on a real team that activates their D and Montour is easily a top 4 D.

I'm pretty sure that Montour's game will improve if he is put in a position that maximizes his strengths: IMO, that is paired with a reliable 2LD, encouraged to attack, and given some PP time.

When he was acquired, I always kinda envisioned he and McCabe would do that here, but we've rarely seen it.

[bob_sauve28]

2 hours ago, OhMyDahlin said:

"Murdered his career?"

He literally got a promotion from the AHL to the NHL. Lol.

I was just being sarcastic 

[Kruppstahl]

Paul Hamilton has thrown this out there a couple of times in the last few days.

No one should be surprised by an NHL HC trying to protect his turf in this manner.  They are all looking out for Number 1, all the time.

Ralph has been looking out for himself for a while now; it will take someone beyond him see that, remove him, and start to solve our problems.

Pegula isn't very bright, particularly when it comes to sports.

This is why a PHO might well be a good thing for the Sabres, assuming Ralph has more power than Adams, which I think is the case.

Who is the "expert voice" in the organization warning Pegula that Ralph is only looking out for himself right now, and the he needs to go?

Adams?  Maybe.

 

 

 

[Marvin]

6 hours ago, Thorny said:

No, he didn't adequately fill 2C. 

If a warm body counts as "doing it", that standards are too low

Staal was a 1C last year.  It is hardly unreasonable to expect that he could be a 2C here.  IMHO, if Staal couldn't make it work with RK, then no one short of the a clear 1C could.

[Thorner]

11 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

Staal was a 1C last year.  It is hardly unreasonable to expect that he could be a 2C here.  IMHO, if Staal couldn't make it work with RK, then no one short of the a clear 1C could.

Ya, it seemed like there was a decent chance Staal may be able to provide that for us. A lot of people thought that, I was hoping that. But the sample size we are looking at is 0 for 1. Do you think out of 10 or 20 or so similar late-career, new team acquisitions like this one, we represent an utter anomaly? To me it seems more likely this type of acquisition always had a bit of built in risk. 

The price we paid mitigates the failure of the acquisition somewhat, and yes, through the prism of the moment there seemed to be a decent chance he would work out. But I keep coming back to this in several discussions today: it didn't. The job for the GM is to adequately address holes not make decisions that seem to have a decent likelihood of working out, that being the closed book on it, and everyone agrees the guy tried his best with the info available so he's off the hook for bad performance. It's about results. 

His results were terrible therefore he did not do an adequate job. There are mitigating factors somewhat but IMO they serve to buy Adams more time to implement his vision, but not a glowing review or even a pass to the results I've seen so far. 

This is the highest level of pro hockey. There are only 32 of these jobs - they are literally supposed to be the best of the best. I think it's ok to expect more. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Thorny

[Marvin]

49 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Ya, it seemed like there was a decent chance Staal may be able to provide that for us. A lot of people thought that, I was hoping that. But the sample size we are looking at is 0 for 1. Do you think out of 10 or 20 or so similar late-career, new team acquisitions like this one, we represent an utter anomaly? To me it seems more likely this type of acquisition always had a bit of built in risk. 

The price we paid mitigates the failure of the acquisition somewhat, and yes, through the prism of the moment there seemed to be a decent chance he would work out. But I keep coming back to this in several discussions today: it didn't. The job for the GM is to adequately address holes not make decisions that seem to have a decent likelihood of working out, that being the closed book on it, and everyone agrees the guy tried his best with the info available so he's off the hook for bad performance. It's about results. 

His results were terrible therefore he did not do an adequate job. There are mitigating factors somewhat but IMO they serve to buy Adams more time to implement his vision, but not a glowing review or even a pass to the results I've seen so far. 

This is the highest level of pro hockey. There are only 32 of these jobs - they are literally supposed to be the best of the best. I think it's ok to expect more. 

I think we are in a bit of a Heisenberg uncertainty principle situation.  I find it impossible to call his acquisition of Staal a failure because I can't extract being hamstrung by RK from it.  I am willing to cut him more slack than you are because I think he had no choice on the coach, was fed a bill of goods by the coaching staff on how good the team was, and would have worked passably if the coaching had merely been mediocre.

Now, if he trades Staal and Staal continues to stink out the joint, then I will revise my evaluation to align with yours.

I am far more negative about signing Taylor Hall.  There were players who would have made the team far deeper who were signed more cheaply later in the off-season.  His problems were much easier to foresee.  But then again, we have the RK uncertainty principle again with him.

[Andrew Amerk]

So...Ralph lied about Jack’s injury, and other people lied about why Tails was let go. 

This is awesome. The Sabres are earning respect from everyone at every turn. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

Would KA have already fired RK if CT was still the coach in Rochester?

[SABRES 0311]

12 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Never understood the move.  I recall some weird comments about Rochester too focused on winning and not player development.  What’s wrong with both?  What’s wrong with having your  players develop and do it in a winning environment?
 

Uhlmark, Olofsson, Borgen and Bryson are products of Taylor’s teams. Asplund too.  He spent time trying to rehab Mitts and Tage - two players mishandled from the start.  
 

Too much change and you lose the good with the bad.   

Really.  You would think Sabres management would want the up and comers to know how to win.  Last thing we need is another runner up consolation prize.

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

This is the highest level of pro hockey. There are only 32 of these jobs - they are literally supposed to be the best of the best. I think it's ok to expect more. 

I think this has vanished pretty much since Lindy Ruff was handed his walking papers.

Teddy demanded effort but he didn't have the horses to demand results. Murray was sloppy, Bylsma ignored, Botterill wilfully blind, and Housley soft as pillows.

Jeff Skinner scored three goals in 60 games and people were stunned and outraged he got sat. That's wrong.

How can you be surprised at the lack of accountability when you don't demand it?

Adams doesn't need to be a hardass, but he needs to set a standard: Do your job or we will give someone else a chance to do it.

It starts with Krueger, but it needs to include people like Staal, and Eakin, and Okposo and anyone else who is not carrying their load.

[DarthEbriate]

31 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Would KA have already fired RK if CT was still the coach in Rochester?

Well, no. But would KA have a job if JBot hadn't refused to cut folks/payroll including CT and the Rochester staff? It's a box we can only speculate so much upon opening.

[DarthEbriate]

12 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Adams doesn't need to be a hardass, but he needs to set a standard: Do your job or we will give someone else a chance to do it.

It starts with Krueger, but it needs to include people like Staal, and Eakin, and Okposo and anyone else who is not carrying their load.

Precisely. I'm good with a new coach giving some vets the chance to prove themselves for a few games. But Asplund would take over for Okposo for me as soon as that window was pass, even if just to evaluate the youngster. And maybe Asplund can still play center, in which case he's in for Eakin. And I'd remove the captain. The remaining season is a trial for my new captain.

[Marvin]

20 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I think this has vanished pretty much since Lindy Ruff was handed his walking papers.

Teddy demanded effort but he didn't have the horses to demand results. Murray was sloppy, Bylsma ignored, Botterill wilfully blind, and Housley soft as pillows.

Potential correction: my information was that Housley's coaching style "was the second coming of Scotty Bowman" and that "his frustration with the team's declining performance and lack of support from above" caused him to eventually "come unglued."  If true, he was not soft as pillows.

Of course, this could be someone trying to rehab his reputation.  But given how positive the players were to RK's approach, it is plausible.

[dudacek]

30 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

Potential correction: my information was that Housley's coaching style "was the second coming of Scotty Bowman" and that "his frustration with the team's declining performance and lack of support from above" caused him to eventually "come unglued."  If true, he was not soft as pillows.

Of course, this could be someone trying to rehab his reputation.  But given how positive the players were to RK's approach, it is plausible.

I have no information other than what he presented to the public and how I saw him use his players. Neither of those things showed me what I am looking for.

[Pimlach]

6 hours ago, OhMyDahlin said:

Olofsson stepped in and did that because of his development in Sweden, playing against men for years.

Bryson and Borgen spent significant time on top-end NCAA programs, then both came to the Amerks and looked great from the jump.

I'm not trying to crap on the guy, I'd take him over Krueger at this point but, again, he couldn't win a playoff game with good teams.

He created an environment were these young guys could develop their game further, play on a team that didn’t suck, acclimate to North American Hockey with more hitting than they ever had.  He put some tougher veteran guys on the team too make sure the young talent didn’t get abused - smart move.    We were getting value from Rochester and they fired him, his staff, and the GM Sexton.    Bad move for a team who’s reason for existence is winning Stanley Cups.  

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Would KA have already fired RK if CT was still the coach in Rochester?

Probably.  I would have.  Why not give him a shot as interim and take time to find the next coach?  

[Curt]

5 hours ago, Thorny said:

Ya, it seemed like there was a decent chance Staal may be able to provide that for us. A lot of people thought that, I was hoping that. But the sample size we are looking at is 0 for 1. Do you think out of 10 or 20 or so similar late-career, new team acquisitions like this one, we represent an utter anomaly? To me it seems more likely this type of acquisition always had a bit of built in risk. 

The price we paid mitigates the failure of the acquisition somewhat, and yes, through the prism of the moment there seemed to be a decent chance he would work out. But I keep coming back to this in several discussions today: it didn't. The job for the GM is to adequately address holes not make decisions that seem to have a decent likelihood of working out, that being the closed book on it, and everyone agrees the guy tried his best with the info available so he's off the hook for bad performance. It's about results. 

His results were terrible therefore he did not do an adequate job. There are mitigating factors somewhat but IMO they serve to buy Adams more time to implement his vision, but not a glowing review or even a pass to the results I've seen so far. 

This is the highest level of pro hockey. There are only 32 of these jobs - they are literally supposed to be the best of the best. I think it's ok to expect more. 

I have a hard time knowing for sure if it’s a failure of Adams or if a lot of it is coaching.  Eichel, Hall, Olofsson, Staal, Skinner, Eakin, Okposo, Dahlin, Jokiharju, Montour (did I miss anyone?) all seem to be playing about as poorly as they ever have.  Is that a coincidence?  It’s not just the players Adams brought in.

[Thorner]

5 hours ago, dudacek said:

I think this has vanished pretty much since Lindy Ruff was handed his walking papers.

Teddy demanded effort but he didn't have the horses to demand results. Murray was sloppy, Bylsma ignored, Botterill wilfully blind, and Housley soft as pillows.

Jeff Skinner scored three goals in 60 games and people were stunned and outraged he got sat. That's wrong.

How can you be surprised at the lack of accountability when you don't demand it?

Adams doesn't need to be a hardass, but he needs to set a standard: Do your job or we will give someone else a chance to do it.

It starts with Krueger, but it needs to include people like Staal, and Eakin, and Okposo and anyone else who is not carrying their load.

Ya I mean that’s pretty much what I was saying 

1 hour ago, Curt said:

I have a hard time knowing for sure if it’s a failure of Adams or if a lot of it is coaching.  Eichel, Hall, Olofsson, Staal, Skinner, Eakin, Okposo, Dahlin, Jokiharju, Montour (did I miss anyone?) all seem to be playing about as poorly as they ever have.  Is that a coincidence?  It’s not just the players Adams brought in.

Ya I mean I’ve been saying the coaching is terrible for weeks. I’m not the guy wanting to boil this down to one issue.

I’ve spoken ad nauseam about there being a multitude of issues stemming from a big one at the top. 

I’ve noticed people have a tendency to want to ease off on blame in favour of blaming someone else. Why? It’s all of them. And it’s all of them because of who’s steering at the top. 

Adams wasn’t good enough 

Krueger wasn’t good enough 

Eichel wasn’t good enough 

The mitigating factors merely determine who gets a reprieve, not a pat on the back 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

16 hours ago, dudacek said:

Not arguing your points at all, however it should be pointed out he did have one off-season success: the special teams.

PK has moved from among the all-time worst to top-10. The PP is top 3.

Faceoff win percentage has moved into top 10 as well.

Generally speaking, Sheahan and Reider and Lazar were good value signings that filled a need.

Small consolation, I know.

I don't really want to defend Kreuger too much, but I have a nagging feeling that it's not all about his ideas/system but more about the players we have. Is it possible that those 3 relatively low skilled players are doing well (again relatively) because they (and a few of the kids) are the only ones actually listening to Kreuger and doing what he asks them to do? 

[dudacek]

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I don't really want to defend Kreuger too much, but I have a nagging feeling that it's not all about his ideas/system but more about the players we have. Is it possible that those 3 relatively low skilled players are doing well (again relatively) because they (and a few of the kids) are the only ones actually listening to Kreuger and doing what he asks them to do? 

I think anyone pinning the multitude of poor performances solely on Krueger is in for a rude awakening.

Exterior factors do affect performance. But the single biggest factor is always the player himself.

[LGR4GM]

37 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I think anyone pinning the multitude of poor performances solely on Krueger is in for a rude awakening.

Exterior factors do affect performance. But the single biggest factor is always the player himself.

Definitely not all on Krueger. To quote Shakespeare, something is rotten in the state of "Sabresville". 

[inkman]

Listening to Hamilton discuss this with Schopp & Bulldog yesterday was quite infuriating.  The quote was “scoring goals is how Jeff’s measured his whole career” was completely dismissed by Paul.  He said when he heard it, he didn’t take it as a slight.  
 

Im sorry, what?  Did words stop meaning things?  Sorry Paul, that’s exactly what it means. He’s throwing mad shade on Jeff.  I don’t know if Hamilton was told by his employers (the Pegulas) to squash the topic or what.  Schopp was incredulous that Paul would come to that conclusion.