Philosophy on the rebuild

[Marvin]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

The philosophy demands internal growth in order to be successful.

Last year, the rebuild elevated Dahlin and Thompson, resuscitated Okposo and Skinner, and added Samuelsson, Krebs, Asplund and Tuch as useful parts.

For it to continue to be a success, we need it do most of the following: maintain Dahlin, Tuch, Thompson, Okposo and Skinner; elevate Mittelstadt, Jokiharju, Olofsson and Cozens, and add Power, Quinn, Peterka, Lyubushkin and Comrie.

 

IMHO, this is THE definitive way of explaining GMKA's mindset.

[That Aud Smell]

I like this Twitter account. These are thought-provoking Tweets. And I think they may be correct as well.

 

[Curt]

27 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

I like this Twitter account. These are thought-provoking Tweets. And I think they may be correct as well.

 

It’s an interesting thought.  Reminds me of a concept used among high level soccer coaches/teams.  They call it tactical periodization.  The idea is that you can’t teach a complicated tactical system all at once.  It’s just too much, so managers break it up into pieces and implement the full system over a longer period of time, 6 months-1 year.  I’m not sure it translates exactly to the Sabres situation, but that’s what it brought to my mind.

[That Aud Smell]

30 minutes ago, Curt said:

It’s an interesting thought.  Reminds me of a concept used among high level soccer coaches/teams.  They call it tactical periodization.  The idea is that you can’t teach a complicated tactical system all at once.  It’s just too much, so managers break it up into pieces and implement the full system over a longer period of time, 6 months-1 year.  I’m not sure it translates exactly to the Sabres situation, but that’s what it brought to my mind.

Interesting.

I remember hearing Granato talk some time ago about how his principal focus with the team has been to get them to learn how to create good scoring chances in the best league in the world. And he made some remarks about how *difficult* it is to do that - both to teach it and to learn it and to do it.

[Taro T]

51 minutes ago, Curt said:

It’s an interesting thought.  Reminds me of a concept used among high level soccer coaches/teams.  They call it tactical periodization.  The idea is that you can’t teach a complicated tactical system all at once.  It’s just too much, so managers break it up into pieces and implement the full system over a longer period of time, 6 months-1 year.  I’m not sure it translates exactly to the Sabres situation, but that’s what it brought to my mind.

 

19 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Interesting.

I remember hearing Granato talk some time ago about how his principal focus with the team has been to get them to learn how to create good scoring chances in the best league in the world. And he made some remarks about how *difficult* it is to do that - both to teach it and to learn it and to do it.

Not only that, but he also said it is (relatively) easy to teach defensive concepts.  (Which is accurate.)  Because of the difficulty in teaching/ learning offense (& let's face it, this team needed to learn offense) it was his focus to the detriment of defense.

It SEEMS this team is close to the point where stronger defensive play (team D, not strictly on just the D-men) is going to be added to what they're doing.  Wouldn't be surprised if it begins to legitimately get incorporated after the calendar flips or after the AS break.  Wondering if flipping that switch is dependent upon having Comrie back or Granato's & (presumably) Bales talking up UPL to the point he believes he can be an NHL goalie; as doubt they're going to be winning at a much higher rate playing lower event hockey than they currently do as a, still expecting UPL to give up more than he should in a defensively sound framework.

They might be waiting until next year to flip that switch as it was Miller's ability to stop breakaways that really allowed the '05-'07 Sabres squads to play firebrand hockey.  They were good w/ a D joining the rush & pinching in zone because they knew Miller would cover up the oopsies.

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

It’s an interesting thought.  Reminds me of a concept used among high level soccer coaches/teams.  They call it tactical periodization.  The idea is that you can’t teach a complicated tactical system all at once.  It’s just too much, so managers break it up into pieces and implement the full system over a longer period of time, 6 months-1 year.  I’m not sure it translates exactly to the Sabres situation, but that’s what it brought to my mind.

It does make some sense; the idea being that one you teach players how to play offense at an NHL level that their confidence will carry them through the rougher moments of playing more defensively. Essentially when you start playing defensively; if you're struggling to create offense; you still have the knowledge of how to create the offense and thus you start trying to bridge the gaps.

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

I like this Twitter account. These are thought-provoking Tweets. And I think they may be correct as well.

 

This assumes that the same players that can do steps 1 and 2 can also do step 3.   We know that is not always the case. 

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

I like this Twitter account. These are thought-provoking Tweets. And I think they may be correct as well.

 

Oh so Adams has just been acquiring goalies for the system we’ll one day have, instead of the one we have now. Or is it just that no goalie could have worked in this system, until perfected, and that we won’t be seeing any roster additions to the position, going forward, beyond the fringe options expected to carry the load ala the Carolina system back in the day? 

Is the point of the tweet that we don’t actually need to acquire goaltending or that it’s going to be incorporated in time? 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Thorny

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

Interesting.

I remember hearing Granato talk some time ago about how his principal focus with the team has been to get them to learn how to create good scoring chances in the best league in the world. And he made some remarks about how *difficult* it is to do that - both to teach it and to learn it and to do it.

I, like you, have heard DG talk on WGR about the sequencing of principles, and which of them are a priority. He has on a number of occasions stated (as you noted) that the first priority is to concentrate on getting an offensive flow, and once that approach has been mastered/installed go on to building a defensive system. Contrast his offensive, north/south attacking approach to Krueger's more defensive posture to the game! One coach believed in suppressing talent while the current coach believes in the expression of talent. 

[dudacek]

Glad to see recognition and discussion of the “bite-size” approach to building a team.

Adams and Granato were very clear a year ago they were focused first on developing hockey players, and Granato was very clear that his primary mission was teaching offence.

The team has been a top-5 offence all year. How do you think the young players have been developing?

I don’t begrudge your frustrations. I share many of your questions.

But I’m enjoying this team. And I trust the process.

[Curt]

13 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Oh so Adams has just been acquiring goalies for the system we’ll one day have, instead of the one we have now. Or is it just that no goalie could have worked in this system, until perfected, and that we won’t be seeing any roster additions to the position, going forward, beyond the fringe options expected to carry the load ala the Carolina system back in the day? 

Is the point of the tweet that we don’t actually need to acquire goaltending or that it’s going to be incorporated in time? 

I don’t really think the tweet makes any assertion about the goaltending.  The point seems to be that they give up a lot of chances against and a prediction for that to improve in time.

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, Curt said:

I don’t really think the tweet makes any assertion about the goaltending.  The point seems to be that they give up a lot of chances against and a prediction for that to improve in time.

No? I wasn’t really sure. My first thought was the implication was we may not even need a roster addition at the position potentially. The replies on the tweet seem to take it that way too, that’s part of the confusion on my end. Ie “we aren’t a goalie away, we just need to develop the system more!”

It certainly frames the “we give up a lot of chances” thing under the goalie conversation. I’d be surprised if he wasn’t making any assertion about goalie at all, or else why frame it that way 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Thorny

[grinreaper]

22 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I, like you, have heard DG talk on WGR about the sequencing of principles, and which of them are a priority. He has on a number of occasions stated (as you noted) that the first priority is to concentrate on getting an offensive flow, and once that approach has been mastered/installed go on to building a defensive system. Contrast his offensive, north/south attacking approach to Krueger's more defensive posture to the game! One coach believed in suppressing talent while the current coach believes in the expression of talent. 

I agree with your take and add that the players will most likely enjoy the game better if they're scoring at a high level and will more easily buy in to any defensive system that ends up being introduced. Krueger had the whole team looking over their shoulders and afraid to make a mistake. Good management, whether business or sports, allows their employees to stretch their horizons and improve by pushing their personal envelopes. 

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

No? I wasn’t really sure. My first thought was the implication was we may not even need a roster addition at the position potentially. The replies on the tweet seem to take it that way too, that’s part of the confusion on my end. Ie “we aren’t a goalie away, we just need to develop the system more!”

It certainly frames the “we give up a lot of chances” thing under the goalie conversation. I’d be surprised if he wasn’t making any assertion about goalie at all, or else why frame it that way 

I'm thinking that it's an "all of the above" situation.

[JohnC]

12 minutes ago, grinreaper said:

I agree with your take and add that the players will most likely enjoy the game better if they're scoring at a high level and will more easily buy in to any defensive system that ends up being introduced. Krueger had the whole team looking over their shoulders and afraid to make a mistake. Good management, whether business or sports, allows their employees to stretch their horizons and improve by pushing their personal envelopes. 

What Krueger didn't understand is that the NHL of today is a different game that he envisioned. This is now an era of fast pace north/south hockey where the modern rules promote movement. It isn't about retrenching back as it is pushing forward. His background was coaching a Swiss team that played against superior teams. His approach made sense because talent-wise he couldn't match the talent of the opposition. So everything he did was to stifle the opposition and hope to capitalize on their mistakes. He was simply a fish out of the water floundering around and drowning himself. 

[Curt]

23 minutes ago, Thorny said:

No? I wasn’t really sure. My first thought was the implication was we may not even need a roster addition at the position potentially. The replies on the tweet seem to take it that way too, that’s part of the confusion on my end. Ie “we aren’t a goalie away, we just need to develop the system more!”

It certainly frames the “we give up a lot of chances” thing under the goalie conversation. I’d be surprised if he wasn’t making any assertion about goalie at all, or else why frame it that way 

You may be right.  Hard to say with certainty.  There could be an implied point about the goaltending, but it wasn’t explicitly stated.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, Curt said:

You may be right.  Hard to say with certainty.  There could be an implied point about the goaltending, but it wasn’t explicitly stated.

I think there’s a very real possibility the types of goalie adds Adams has been making, if par for the course moving forward, do end up being some sort of version of “good enough” considering the apparent looming depth of the other positions. But I have a funny feeling if we do get good enough, to make a run, we’ll be left wanting and needing better than good enough, in net. Maybe Adams really doesn’t have any choice at this point but to hope Levi is that guy while focusing on building an overall team with the ability to mask a good enough option in net while they take swings at buy low aim high moneyball options or whatever. 

It makes the Ullmark failure worse but I know that’s not supposed to be mentioned 

[JohnC]

35 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I think there’s a very real possibility the types of goalie adds Adams has been making, if par for the course moving forward, do end up being some sort of version of “good enough” considering the apparent looming depth of the other positions. But I have a funny feeling if we do get good enough, to make a run, we’ll be left wanting and needing better than good enough, in net. Maybe Adams really doesn’t have any choice at this point but to hope Levi is that guy while focusing on building an overall team with the ability to mask a good enough option in net while they take swings at buy low aim high moneyball options or whatever. 

It makes the Ullmark failure worse but I know that’s not supposed to be mentioned 

You are treading on dangerous territory when you bring up the Ullmark issue. 🤡

This is a hypothetical question: How many more points do you believe the Sabres would have this season if it got Ullmark caliber goaltending on a consistent basis?

[Curt]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

I think there’s a very real possibility the types of goalie adds Adams has been making, if par for the course moving forward, do end up being some sort of version of “good enough” considering the apparent looming depth of the other positions. But I have a funny feeling if we do get good enough, to make a run, we’ll be left wanting and needing better than good enough, in net. Maybe Adams really doesn’t have any choice at this point but to hope Levi is that guy while focusing on building an overall team with the ability to mask a good enough option in net while they take swings at buy low aim high moneyball options or whatever. 

It makes the Ullmark failure worse but I know that’s not supposed to be mentioned 

So far, I’d say that Adams has handled to goalie situation similar to how he has handled every other position.  He seems reluctant (unwilling?) to use long term assets to fill current holes in the roster.

At some point, that will need to change.  He will need to use long term assets (picks/prospects/cap space) to acquire immediate solutions for roster holes.  Whether it’s goaltender, #4 defenseman, 3C, or other, there will be something that needs fixing.

I expect that at some point there will be a shift.

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, Curt said:

So far, I’d say that Adams has handled to goalie situation similar to how he has handled every other position.  He seems reluctant (unwilling?) to use long term assets to fill current holes in the roster.

At some point, that will need to change.  He will need to use long term assets (picks/prospects/cap space) to acquire immediate solutions for roster holes.  Whether it’s goaltender, #4 defenseman, 3C, or other, there will be something that needs fixing.

I expect that at some point there will be a shift.

There definitely will be.  Hoping it comes this offseason.  (Would be nice if it were sooner, but just not expecting it & won't go constantly shouting at the clouds hoping he will do something sooner when it isn't likely to happen.)  The fear is we won't be there until the next offseason, but am pretty sure it'll start this offseason.

[grinreaper]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

I think there’s a very real possibility the types of goalie adds Adams has been making, if par for the course moving forward, do end up being some sort of version of “good enough” considering the apparent looming depth of the other positions. But I have a funny feeling if we do get good enough, to make a run, we’ll be left wanting and needing better than good enough, in net. Maybe Adams really doesn’t have any choice at this point but to hope Levi is that guy while focusing on building an overall team with the ability to mask a good enough option in net while they take swings at buy low aim high moneyball options or whatever. 

It makes the Ullmark failure worse but I know that’s not supposed to be mentioned 

I'll miss Ullmark in shootouts. As bad as Lehner was in the SO, Ullmark was absolutely great.

[Thorner]

11 hours ago, JohnC said:

You are treading on dangerous territory when you bring up the Ullmark issue. 🤡

This is a hypothetical question: How many more points do you believe the Sabres would have this season if it got Ullmark caliber goaltending on a consistent basis?

Honestly, I have no idea. A not-insignificant number, though, I’d imagine - and especially given our documented ability to score goals, it’s not a number we want to underestimate. It’s not like in years past where hypothetical good goaltending would just result in closer losses. 

10 hours ago, Curt said:

So far, I’d say that Adams has handled to goalie situation similar to how he has handled every other position.  He seems reluctant (unwilling?) to use long term assets to fill current holes in the roster.

At some point, that will need to change.  He will need to use long term assets (picks/prospects/cap space) to acquire immediate solutions for roster holes.  Whether it’s goaltender, #4 defenseman, 3C, or other, there will be something that needs fixing.

I expect that at some point there will be a shift.

The bold: I mean, ya, but that’s kinda the obvious part, no? I think the point being made is that there’s a school of thought that says it’s ok to vary how you approach the addressing of each individual position, depending on their varying needs. Clearly, goalie was a need more so than at F. Perhaps he could have varied his approach - particularly in light of losing out on retaining a goalie he himself seemed to think we could really use. 

I agree with the rest, though. At the end of the day I think it comes down to a difference of opinion on how highly to prioritize GT for this season and last: ultimately I see it like you and have mentioned before that there’s some cap space dry to take a bigger swing at a G in the case that Levi doesn’t pan out. Levi timeline still makes the most sense. 

Though I truly hope the expectation next season is playoffs.

[Curt]

45 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The bold: I mean, ya, but that’s kinda the obvious part, no? I think the point being made is that there’s a school of thought that says it’s ok to vary how you approach the addressing of each individual position, depending on their varying needs. Clearly, goalie was a need more so than at F. Perhaps he could have varied his approach - particularly in light of losing out on retaining a goalie he himself seemed to think we could really use. 

I agree with the rest, though. At the end of the day I think it comes down to a difference of opinion on how highly to prioritize GT for this season and last: ultimately I see it like you and have mentioned before that there’s some cap space dry to take a bigger swing at a G in the case that Levi doesn’t pan out. Levi timeline still makes the most sense. 

Though I truly hope the expectation next season is playoffs.

I am frightened by the idea that the Sabres are on the Devon Levi timeline.  I don’t see that as a wise path.  They need a viable goalie for the next 2-3 years.  Levi should probably get a big chunk of one season in the AHL and then if he succeeds there, ease him into being an NHL goalie, starting with true backup duty and increasing his usage as dictated by performance.

If Comrie doesn’t come around this season and just kind of stinks it up, the Sabres are going to need to go sign another goalie for 2-3 years who is better than Comrie.

If the great play of the top 6 forwards and top 3 D continues, then yes, I agree that they should make moves this offseason with the expectation of being a playoff team next season.

[JohnC]

11 hours ago, Taro T said:

There definitely will be.  Hoping it comes this offseason.  (Would be nice if it were sooner, but just not expecting it & won't go constantly shouting at the clouds hoping he will do something sooner when it isn't likely to happen.)  The fear is we won't be there until the next offseason, but am pretty sure it'll start this offseason.

I believe the organization has reached (or is close to) the point where it doesn't have to make any blockbuster deals requiring giving up significant assets to acquire top two line or top two pairing players. I would rather add another couple of Lyubushkin caliber players, who I consider to be a third pairing player. That mid-tier type of additions would add depth and more properly align where players should be slotted, especially on the blue line. 

I have not given up on Mitts and Olofsson. No question they are struggling. But it wasn't too long ago when DG said that Mitts was one of the better players in his training camp a couple of years ago. If Mitts can regain his form and confidence, I think he will be slotted as a credible third line player and a contributor on the second PP. That would be fine with me. 

Just a reminder: How many people gave up on Skinner and felt that he was a financial albatross around this roster? Now he is considered a primary player and worth his heavy salary. 

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

I believe the organization has reached (or is close to) the point where it doesn't have to make any blockbuster deals requiring giving up significant assets to acquire top two line or top two pairing players. I would rather add another couple of Lyubushkin caliber players, who I consider to be a third pairing player. That mid-tier type of additions would add depth and more properly align where players should be slotted, especially on the blue line. 

I have not given up on Mitts and Olofsson. No question they are struggling. But it wasn't too long ago when DG said that Mitts was one of the better players in his training camp a couple of years ago. If Mitts can regain his form and confidence, I think he will be slotted as a credible third line player and a contributor on the second PP. That would be fine with me. 

Just a reminder: How many people gave up on Skinner and felt that he was a financial albatross around this roster? Now he is considered a primary player and worth his heavy salary. 

Not saying there's an expectation of a blockbuster deal.  But right now, there are no deals (not entirely Adams fault, he made a trade for a goalie but was then rebuffed & supposedly might also have had 1 other trade worked out that got rebuffed by the player) at all.

Expecting that will change this offseason.  And we'll see 2-3 middle 6 players &/or prospects that project to that level traded for either GT, #4 D (though that piece will more likely come via FA, hoping he brings in a couple that way), or very good PK C that's a reasonable 2 way player.  Granted, that could all be projection, but Adams realizes the team needs to be better & not all the holes will be filled w/ on house prospects.

[Brawndo]

15 hours ago, Curt said:

So far, I’d say that Adams has handled to goalie situation similar to how he has handled every other position.  He seems reluctant (unwilling?) to use long term assets to fill current holes in the roster.

At some point, that will need to change.  He will need to use long term assets (picks/prospects/cap space) to acquire immediate solutions for roster holes.  Whether it’s goaltender, #4 defenseman, 3C, or other, there will be something that needs fixing.

I expect that at some point there will be a shift.

The rumored offer for John Gibson was the Sabres 2023 1st with lottery protection on it. 
Based on Gibson’s Play I’m happy He said no to waiving 

3 hours ago, Curt said:

I am frightened by the idea that the Sabres are on the Devon Levi timeline.  I don’t see that as a wise path.  They need a viable goalie for the next 2-3 years.  Levi should probably get a big chunk of one season in the AHL and then if he succeeds there, ease him into being an NHL goalie, starting with true backup duty and increasing his usage as dictated by performance.

If Comrie doesn’t come around this season and just kind of stinks it up, the Sabres are going to need to go sign another goalie for 2-3 years who is better than Comrie.

If the great play of the top 6 forwards and top 3 D continues, then yes, I agree that they should make moves this offseason with the expectation of being a playoff team next season.

Levi has fallen back a little, Northeastern has lost 4 out of His Last Five Starts. 
I think they make a move to shore up the goalie position.