Tuch should be captain next year

[Eleven]

On 3/15/2023 at 11:23 AM, Taro T said:

The TEAM quit.  The TEAM has never quit while Tuch was on the ice.

 

And now?  I love you, man, but no.  This team has a lot of "quit," and it's nothing to do with Tuch or Dahlin.  

Let's just say I'm aching for NJ to go out in the first round even though I'll be rooting for my guy.

[Taro T]

9 minutes ago, Eleven said:

And now?  I love you, man, but no.  This team has a lot of "quit," and it's nothing to do with Tuch or Dahlin.  

Let's just say I'm aching for NJ to go out in the first round even though I'll be rooting for my guy.

There is a difference between playing bad and quitting.  That team was bad tonight, but it was not Boston or Dallas level quitting.  Filly easily could've had 2 more goals if the team had quit.  Dahlin and Mitts both made hard plays to break up nearly certain goals in the 3rd.

That team was playing very individualistically after they fell behind, and that is not winning hockey.  At all.  But it is FAR different than quitting.

[Eleven]

6 minutes ago, Taro T said:

That team was bad tonight, but it was not Boston or Dallas level quitting. 

This is where your opinion and mine depart.

[LGR4GM]

10 hours ago, Taro T said:

There is a difference between playing bad and quitting.  That team was bad tonight, but it was not Boston or Dallas level quitting.  Filly easily could've had 2 more goals if the team had quit.  Dahlin and Mitts both made hard plays to break up nearly certain goals in the 3rd.

That team was playing very individualistically after they fell behind, and that is not winning hockey.  At all.  But it is FAR different than quitting.

So you're just gonna use any game they lost that Tuch didn't play in and ignore games like last night. 

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

So you're just gonna use any game they lost that Tuch didn't play in and ignore games like last night. 

There is a difference between playing bad and quitting.  We saw many examples of the latter in the Eichel years.  There are exactly 2 of those style games in the past 2 seasons.  The Bruins game and the Dallas game.

They've had a LOT of bad games the past 2 seasons.  That 8 game losing streak being a prime example.  But they didn't quit during any of those games.  They simply weren't good.

[Eleven]

8 minutes ago, Taro T said:

There is a difference between playing bad and quitting.  We saw many examples of the latter in the Eichel years.  There are exactly 2 of those style games in the past 2 seasons.  The Bruins game and the Dallas game.

They've had a LOT of bad games the past 2 seasons.  That 8 game losing streak being a prime example.  But they didn't quit during any of those games.  They simply weren't good.

Come on.  At no point last night did they look interested in playing hockey.  They looked like a bunch of pouty teenagers.

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

Come on.  At no point last night did they look interested in playing hockey.  They looked like a bunch of pouty teenagers.

If you can stomach it, go back and rewatch the end of the Bruins game or the end of the Stars game.  They both were way worse than this was.  

They were playing very individualistically and were simply awful as a team.  But they got 21 shots in the 3rd period.  Htf does a team that had quit do that?  Quick answer - they don't.

[Eleven]

23 minutes ago, Taro T said:

If you can stomach it, go back and rewatch the end of the Bruins game or the end of the Stars game.  They both were way worse than this was.  

They were playing very individualistically and were simply awful as a team.  But they got 21 shots in the 3rd period.  Htf does a team that had quit do that?  Quick answer - they don't.

The quick answer isn't always the best answer.  Three Flyers penalties--and no Sabres penalties--in the third is a more than plausible explanation.

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, Eleven said:

The quick answer isn't always the best answer.  Three Flyers penalties--and no Sabres penalties--in the third is a more than plausible explanation.

The team that has been getting 2 shots on goal per PP (if they're lucky) these past 10 or so games when they're actually trying will start getting myriad shots on net AFTER quitting in a game.  Sure they will.

[Eleven]

30 minutes ago, Taro T said:

The team that has been getting 2 shots on goal per PP (if they're lucky) these past 10 or so games when they're actually trying will start getting myriad shots on net AFTER quitting in a game.  Sure they will.

I don't think you're quite addressing all of it. They quit before they showed up in Philadelphia.  21 shots in a third period that featured 6 minutes of man advantage doesn't vitiate that.  Tuch was around for the first two periods, no?  And the Sabres' shots increased in the third because of three power plays, no?

This doesn't mean that Tuch sux (rhyme!) or anything, but he certainly isn't a panacea for every Sabres ill.  It just means that they are subject to the same low-effort BS no matter whether Tuch is in the game.

I wouldn't mind him or Dahlin as captain (but I lean Dahlin), and I remain firm in my long-held belief that it should be a player vote anyway.

Edited March 18, 2023 by Eleven

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

I don't think you're quite addressing all of it. They quit before they showed up in Philadelphia.  21 shots in a third period that featured 6 minutes of man advantage doesn't vitiate that.  Tuch was around for the first two periods, no?  And the Sabres' shots increased in the third because of three power plays, no?

This doesn't mean that Tuch sux (rhyme!) or anything, but he certainly isn't a panacea for every Sabres ill.  It just means that they are subject to the same low-effort BS no matter whether Tuch is in the game.

I wouldn't mind him or Dahlin as captain (but I lean Dahlin), and I remain firm in my long-held belief that it should be a player vote anyway.

Please show me where it has been said that he IS a panacea for every Sabres ill.

Have said 1 statement in 2 parts, which are very simple and very specific.  The team has only QUIT in 2 games out of all the games played this season and last.  (150 in total.)  In neither of those 2 games has Tuch played. 

You and Liger are trying too hard here.  There have been several games Tuch hasn't played in that they haven't quit.  Haven't said that he is necessary to keep them from quitting.  They have RARELY done so since the "true" Granato era has begun.  But whether it be merely coincidentally or not, the only 2 games that they DID quit in happened a mere 1 week apart and in neither game did Tuch play.

There are several players that either currently have a legit claim to being a leader on this team or will within the next 2 seasons.  The team really is blessed in that regard, and quite certatin that is by design.  Several players can have a case made to replace Okposo when he relinquishes the C.  IMO that Tuch is the only one of them that wasn't involved in either of those 2 particular games is the final piece in the pros and cons evaluation that sets him apart from the other candidates.  

Can see any of 3 players getting the C next year if Okposo relinquishes it.  Any would be a good choice.  And should he keep that C next year as well, there will be at least 1 more player that might get it.   But, again, IMHO, Tuch would be the best choice.  (And, repetivitvely, not JUST because he wasn't involved in either of the games they quit.)

[Eleven]

15 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Please show me where it has been said that he IS a panacea for every Sabres ill.

Have said 1 statement in 2 parts, which are very simple and very specific.  The team has only QUIT in 2 games out of all the games played this season and last.  (150 in total.)  In neither of those 2 games has Tuch played. 

You and Liger are trying too hard here.  There have been several games Tuch hasn't played in that they haven't quit.  Haven't said that he is necessary to keep them from quitting.  They have RARELY done so since the "true" Granato era has begun.  But whether it be merely coincidentally or not, the only 2 games that they DID quit in happened a mere 1 week apart and in neither game did Tuch play.

There are several players that either currently have a legit claim to being a leader on this team or will within the next 2 seasons.  The team really is blessed in that regard, and quite certatin that is by design.  Several players can have a case made to replace Okposo when he relinquishes the C.  IMO that Tuch is the only one of them that wasn't involved in either of those 2 particular games is the final piece in the pros and cons evaluation that sets him apart from the other candidates.  

Can see any of 3 players getting the C next year if Okposo relinquishes it.  Any would be a good choice.  And should he keep that C next year as well, there will be at least 1 more player that might get it.   But, again, IMHO, Tuch would be the best choice.  (And, repetivitvely, not JUST because he wasn't involved in either of the games they quit.)

My man, they quit yesterday.  I don't need five paragraphs for that.  I'm trying too hard?!

Edited March 18, 2023 by Eleven

[Taro T]

Just now, Eleven said:

Dude, they quit yesterday.  I don't need five paragraphs for that.  I'm trying too hard?!

Yes.  

(To the bolded that is.)

[Eleven]

The last time the Flyers were down 4-0 to Buffalo, as well as I can remember, Robert Esche lost it.  He blew his cool.  He flipped his lid.

Did anyone see any sort of that passion last night?

No.  They had quit.

[Eleven]

Hey look another example.

[Taro T]

5 hours ago, Eleven said:

Hey look another example.

Didn't get to see the 3rd.  As mentioned elsewhere had a meeting with a client this afternoon.  Through 2 they had not quit.  They were playing poorly, but hadn't quit.  (There actually is a difference between the 2.)   Saw the final score, so will likely not watch the 3rd.  So, will have to take your word for it that they quit in this one.

Really hoping nobody here is happy with that if they did.  But am guessing some are if they did.  'See, they quit when Tuch was in the lineup too.'  Congrats.  Not exactly a good thing if it did in fact happen.

 

 

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Didn't get to see the 3rd.  As mentioned elsewhere had a meeting with a client this afternoon.  Through 2 they had not quit.  They were playing poorly, but hadn't quit.  (There actually is a difference between the 2.)   Saw the final score, so will likely not watch the 3rd.  So, will have to take your word for it that they quit in this one.

Really hoping nobody here is happy with that if they did.  But am guessing some are if they did.  'See, they quit when Tuch was in the lineup too.'  Congrats.  Not exactly a good thing if it did in fact happen.

 

 

They had quit Friday.  They quit today.  And chances are they're going to quit again this week.  

No, I'm not happy.  But "they don't quit when Tuch is in" is not a valid argument.  They have and they do.

This isn't a reflection on Tuch.  It is a valid and supportable observation that is counter to the assertion that they don't "quit" when Tuch is dressed.  They do.  Just as much as when Dahlin is dressed.  This was a non-effort today, as was Friday.

It may be a reflection on Granato, though.

[Taro T]

18 minutes ago, Eleven said:

They had quit Friday.  They quit today.  And chances are they're going to quit again this week.  

No, I'm not happy.  But "they don't quit when Tuch is in" is not a valid argument.  They have and they do.

This isn't a reflection on Tuch.  It is a valid and supportable observation that is counter to the assertion that they don't "quit" when Tuch is dressed.  They do.  Just as much as when Dahlin is dressed.  This was a non-effort today, as was Friday.

It may be a reflection on Granato, though.

They did not quit Friday, regardless of how often you state that they did.  They played very poorly, but they did not quit. 

Pretty sure that I am done with this thread.  (But as always, not positive that's the case,)

[Eleven]

Just now, Taro T said:

They did not quit Friday, regardless of how often you state that they did.  They played very poorly, but they did not quit. 

Pretty sure that I am done with this thread.  (But as always, not positive that's the case,)

I don't know how you can defend this.  But ok.

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

I don't know how you can defend this.  But ok.

How is saying "they played very poorly" defending anything?

(Nicely played, the old guy from Bradford is smiling.)