Don Granato as a HC

[Doohicksie]

13 hours ago, Taro T said:

Would agree that deployment is the primary difference in perceptions of Mittelstadt's play since Krueger left.

I think we've seen with some of the games lately that Mitts is best when centering Tage and Asplund.  That line has a natural chemistry and for whatever reason (trust, maybe?) Tage just seems more confident with and harder on the puck.  He uses his Very Large Body better.  He could still use another 15-20 lb. of muscle.  Asplund provides a speedy forecheck and opportunistic rebound scoring.  The line just clicks.  I know they struggled against Boston before DG broke them up but even against Boston, Mitts was best when he had Tage and Rasmus on his wings.

[PromoTheRobot]

Fun fact: The Sabres have played 20 games since the 18 games losing streak. Their records is 8-9-3.

[JohnC]

4 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Fun fact: The Sabres have played 20 games since the 18 games losing streak. Their records is 8-9-3.

It can't be overstated that line of demarcation between good and palatable hockey was accomplished without much practice time for the replacement coach. And it should be factored in that this more competitive record was done in the midst of a youth movement. You don't need analytics to come to a judgment about how this team is playing under Granato. All you need to do is to trust your eyes. 

Edited May 4, 2021 by JohnC

[pi2000]

Granato is capable, but if you think you can do better, then do better. 

[Radar]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

I'd take Gallant. I'd take Julien. But those guys would have to want to come here. I've never heard a word to that effect.  I'd keep Granato over Torts or Boudreau . I'd probably take Granato over whatever college guy they're taking about too.

This is my thinking. Gallant or Granato over BB or Torts. Torts totally wrong for this team.

[JohnC]

30 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

Granato is capable, but if you think you can do better, then do better. 

Whenever there is a new coaching hire there are obvious questions associated with it. How will the new coach relate to the players and the players to the coach? What system will the new coach install and will it work? With a young roster how does the coach relate to players who are still developing? There are a lot of unknowns with any hire. The advantage of hiring Granato is that he has had a test run in very challenging circumstances and we know the answers to those very tough questions. 

There is another issue that needs to be considered for this chaotic organization. This unstable franchise needs stability. The constant churning of staff and changing directions has left this franchise rudderless not knowing where to go and how to go. Now those in command have had an opportunity to witness someone who has quickly turned things around record-wise and performance-wise. Why look for a solution outside the house when it is already in the house and it is working?   

[Doohicksie]

47 minutes ago, Radar said:

Torts totally wrong for this team.

Agreed.

[Doohicksie]

15 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Why look for a solution outside the house when it is already in the house and it is working?   

The fear is that we're seeing DG's peak right now.  After 6 losses, he righted the ship... for a while, and then Boston.  There are different ways to look at losing all those Boston games but I think we all agree the Sabres looked bad in those losses.  Do we want more of the same next year?  How much of it was really personnel-based and with the return of injured vets we'd be better able to handle the B's with Granato behind the bench? 

It's a tough call.  Do you go for "good enough" that seems to be working, except against the Bruins, or do you go for a better coach that will disrupt what DG has done at the end of this season, but has a higher ceiling?

[Stoner]

So much overthinking from a fan base that has suffered so much. Do you go for a name coach? Of course. Do you make a good trade of Eichel? Of course you do. Are Risto and Reinhart must-keeps? Of course not.

As someone who's really smart once said, "What the hell do you have to lose?"

[Thorner]

9 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

So much overthinking from a fan base that has suffered so much. Do you go for a name coach? Of course. Do you make a good trade of Eichel? Of course you do. Are Risto and Reinhart must-keeps? Of course not.

As someone who's really smart once said, "What the hell do you have to lose?"

Implication of a "good" trade would be one the team benefits from, right? Any trade of Eichel that looks like it will make the team better, absolutely.

Trading Eichel if we get a good offer makes sense, deciding in advance to trade Eichel, for the best offer, to me does not. 

 

[JoeSchmoe]

From an actual systems perspective, I like the North-South quick movement Granato seems to be teaching offense wise.

Personally, i think there's no better way to generate scoring chances than to keep opposing team numbers in your favour. It doesnt even have to be an odd-man rush... You'll score way more 2 on 2 than if you wait until its 5 on 5 in the zone. That was the number 1 reason for Ralphs ineffectual offensive.

What style do the other prospective candidates typically run?

[Marvin]

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

So this means you want him as HC next year? 

Say Gallant or Granato you choose Granato? 

 

2 hours ago, pi2000 said:

Granato is capable, but if you think you can do better, then do better. 

 

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

So much overthinking from a fan base that has suffered so much. Do you go for a name coach? Of course. Do you make a good trade of Eichel? Of course you do. Are Risto and Reinhart must-keeps? Of course not.

As someone who's really smart once said, "What the hell do you have to lose?"

I think everyone has a good point, but I wanted to single out these specific responses.

@PerreaultForever Just because we prefer Granato to what we had does not mean that if we score an interview with Gallant and he seems to be better, then you hire Gallant.  I like that we have moved forward AND I want stability, but it is far more important to have the right guy for the job.

@pi2000 Has exactly the attitude we should have.

@PASabreFan is correct -- we should be open to anything if it appears to improve the franchise.  That includes management as well.  (Terry, Kim -- please let the hockey people be hockey people.)

As it is now, I would be OK with Granato as a coach, but I don't want the team to chintz on the search.

[Sabre fan]

Must admit at one time I thought Torts was the answer...but have changed my mind big time and at this point think DG has done a splendid job with what he has to work with. Boston brought their absolute best "A" game and while the goaltending was  obviously pretty bad the team itself did not embarrass itself whatsoever. Heck we even tried to stand up to them at times (without bringing up a goon). I do think that at this point we need stability desperately and retaining DG and  instead concentrating on getting KA to move some bodies in to replace some that are clearly replaceable (JSG's) and getting two NHL goalies who do not get hurt every couple games will go a long way towards the team being much more competitive next season. Heck DG made this team competitive almost overnight with next to no practice time and missing key pieces (like a NHL goalie for starters). The team clearly believes and trusts DG and enjoy playing for him and give it their all...that is all one can ask. Most importantly he is good with young players and that is essential for this team moving forward as we do have seemingly a heck of a bunch of good young players...      

[Radar]

8 minutes ago, Sabre fan said:

Must admit at one time I thought Torts was the answer...but have changed my mind big time and at this point think DG has done a splendid job with what he has to work with. Boston brought their absolute best "A" game and while the goaltending was  obviously pretty bad the team itself did not embarrass itself whatsoever. Heck we even tried to stand up to them at times (without bringing up a goon). I do think that at this point we need stability desperately and retaining DG and  instead concentrating on getting KA to move some bodies in to replace some that are clearly replaceable (JSG's) and getting two NHL goalies who do not get hurt every couple games will go a long way towards the team being much more competitive next season. Heck DG made this team competitive almost overnight with next to no practice time and missing key pieces (like a NHL goalie for starters). The team clearly believes and trusts DG and enjoy playing for him and give it their all...that is all one can ask. Most importantly he is good with young players and that is essential for this team moving forward as we do have seemingly a heck of a bunch of good young players...      

I don't think I can find much here to disagree with. I think KA should still look at all options but if they decide on Granato I'll have no problem with it. If they had handed him the job immediately after letting RK go, then I'd have had a problem but this team has responded to DG as well as I think we could have expected with anyone else. 

 

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Doohickie said:

The fear is that we're seeing DG's peak right now.  After 6 losses, he righted the ship... for a while, and then Boston.  There are different ways to look at losing all those Boston games but I think we all agree the Sabres looked bad in those losses.  Do we want more of the same next year?  How much of it was really personnel-based and with the return of injured vets we'd be better able to handle the B's with Granato behind the bench? 

It's a tough call.  Do you go for "good enough" that seems to be working, except against the Bruins, or do you go for a better coach that will disrupt what DG has done at the end of this season, but has a higher ceiling?

When the Sabres signed Bylsma they thought they were getting a better coach. When the Sabres signed Housley they thought they were getting a better coach. When the Sabres signed Krueger they thought they were getting a better coach. When the Sabres signed Granato as an interim coach it was considered a temporary hiring until the end of the season when another search for a coach would happen. Based on his performance he has earned the right to become the next coach. 

If you look at the composition of the roster it is made up of a lot of young players. Under his tutelage they have gotten better and contributed to the revitalization of the team's play. The team has gone from being moribund to a fast paced team that is fun to watch. Why go for a retread coach with uncertainties when you already have the known quantity within your own arena?  

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, Radar said:

This is my thinking. Gallant or Granato over BB or Torts. Torts totally wrong for this team.

This is true. the team would require a make over if it was put in Torts hands. Now I personally think that's a better direction but it won't happen so a moot point. Torts wouldn't fit here same way he didn't fit in Vancouver. Gallant idk. He's a tough guy and I like him as a coach but idk if these players would respond to him or not. 

[PerreaultForever]

55 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

 

 

I think everyone has a good point, but I wanted to single out these specific responses.

@PerreaultForever Just because we prefer Granato to what we had does not mean that if we score an interview with Gallant and he seems to be better, then you hire Gallant.  I like that we have moved forward AND I want stability, but it is far more important to have the right guy for the job.

@pi2000 Has exactly the attitude we should have.

@PASabreFan is correct -- we should be open to anything if it appears to improve the franchise.  That includes management as well.  (Terry, Kim -- please let the hockey people be hockey people.)

As it is now, I would be OK with Granato as a coach, but I don't want the team to chintz on the search.

I want to pin you down. IF you were doing the hiring and could get him, would you hire Gallant or would you give Granato the job? 

I would hire Gallant myself. Personally I would hire Torts if he was available and shape the team in a new way but I know what pain that involves so I know it won't be popular. I would keep Granato over hiring Boudreau and I'm 50/50 on Julien so I'd probably err on the side of caution and keep Granato instead. 

[JoeSchmoe]

For the experts out there (especially those that say we can do better than Granato), I'm wondering what kind of system does Gallant run? He's the one guy i dont know enough about to completely count out. 

Also, were the Knights that much better off under him than DeBoer?

Other than being a big name... sell me on him. Not saying I'm buying, but I'd at least like to hear more.

 

 

[Marvin]

9 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I want to pin you down. IF you were doing the hiring and could get him, would you hire Gallant or would you give Granato the job? 

I would hire Gallant myself. Personally I would hire Torts if he was available and shape the team in a new way but I know what pain that involves so I know it won't be popular. I would keep Granato over hiring Boudreau and I'm 50/50 on Julien so I'd probably err on the side of caution and keep Granato instead. 

For the record: I have a preference for an experienced coach over Granato, all other things being equal.

Based on what I know now?  Gallant.  The one problem I have with Gallant is a big one, however: he has only lasted 2.5 or so years at all 3 jobs.

What I would like is someone who is as good with young players as Granato has been to be the next coach -- experienced enough to have the respect of veterans but knows how to develop youth.  That is a tough needle to thread.  (And as someone who sews his own repairs of non-work clothes, I know how hard that is.)  Alain Vigenault?  Gerard Gallant?  Bruce Boudreau?  John Tortorella?  Bueller?

[PromoTheRobot]

Wasn't Gallant in the conversation a few coaching searches ago? Why didn't he come then?

[Radar]

42 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

This is true. the team would require a make over if it was put in Torts hands. Now I personally think that's a better direction but it won't happen so a moot point. Torts wouldn't fit here same way he didn't fit in Vancouver. Gallant idk. He's a tough guy and I like him as a coach but idk if these players would respond to him or not. 

Which moves needle more toward Granato.

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

For the record: I have a preference for an experienced coach over Granato, all other things being equal.

Based on what I know now?  Gallant.  The one problem I have with Gallant is a big one, however: he has only lasted 2.5 or so years at all 3 jobs.

What I would like is someone who is as good with young players as Granato has been to be the next coach -- experienced enough to have the respect of veterans but knows how to develop youth.  That is a tough needle to thread.  (And as someone who sews his own repairs of non-work clothes, I know how hard that is.)  Alain Vigenault?  Gerard Gallant?  Bruce Boudreau?  John Tortorella?  Bueller?

I wonder if there's a little Ted Nolan sort of thing in him. Stubborn guy who doesn't necessarily get along with management and/or owners? Seems like he's maybe not as good a listener as teller but idk.  He's my preferred choice. 

Vigenault certainly has to be called into question with how he's failing in Philly. I know blame can be spread around there but that team has fallen apart under him. 

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, Radar said:

Which moves needle more toward Granato.

Yes, if you stand pat. The young guys can be molded by anyone I think but if this remains Eichel's team it all depends on what he wants. 

[mjd1001]

Right now I'm in favor of Granato. The other names out there...Gallant, Boudreau.....they just don't excite me all that much. Does Granato 'excite' me?  Not really, but it has been fun seeing someone actually make an improvement in not only the team compared to the previous coach, but the performance of some individual players.

[Stoner]

6 hours ago, Thorny said:

Implication of a "good" trade would be one the team benefits from, right? Any trade of Eichel that looks like it will make the team better, absolutely.

Trading Eichel if we get a good offer makes sense, deciding in advance to trade Eichel, for the best offer, to me does not. 

 

And if the Sabres decide to trade Eichel in advance and end up making a good trade, you'd be opposed?