So, if the team can play this well against the Rangers, what do the coaches need to do to build consistency?

[PerreaultForever]

You demand this level of play on a nightly basis as a standard, and not just on response nights after clunkers. 

The country club door has to stay locked and the fun first attitude has to go out the window. Raise the bar of expectation. It's on the coaches and then the leadership down. Accountability and a consistent work ethic, simple as that. 

[steveoat87]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

You demand this level of play on a nightly basis as a standard, and not just on response nights after clunkers. 

The country club door has to stay locked and the fun first attitude has to go out the window. Raise the bar of expectation. It's on the coaches and then the leadership down. Accountability and a consistent work ethic, simple as that. 

Well said.  Enough babying the players and not trying to hurt any feelings.  The fact that they want to be here is not good enough -- they have to act like they want to be here.  And bring in some real assistant coaches.

Edited November 28, 2023 by steveoat87
addition

[Thorner]

3 hours ago, pi2000 said:

Unpopular opinion...  last night was more to do with the Rangers laying an egg, than Buffalo playing exceptionally well.

Don't get me wrong, Buffalo played well... that was definitely their "A" game.

However, if the Rangers brought their "A" game, the score wouldn't have been close. 

It was the focal point of why I predicted a Sabres W 

[ska-T Chitown]

I've gone back and forth on whether or not to comment, but what the heck, why not?
 

With the caveat that I am certainly not a manager (coach) to world class athletes - I really don't think the "toughen them up! No more fun! No more Mr. nice guy!" view is all that relevant to either the Sabres (or any professional sports team, for that matter) or in the non-sports world.

I presume that no one who posts to this board is in any team meetings or generally privy to anything that really goes on between the coaches and players and amongst the players themselves, so "there is no accountability" is just internet speculation - which is totally allowable and honestly other than cat videos, what else is the internet for? So, fine.

But from my experience I just don't see that hard-lined approach working as well as it used to. The evidence in the non-sports world grows daily that managing people based on their individual communication styles and their strengths while coaching them to improve not only their weaknesses but to also enhance and broaden their strengths is far and away the most effective way to manage young talent. I have seen it a lot in my career (I am in the nuclear engineering world, so while they are not world-class athletes many are actually amongst the brightest individuals in their field) and I know business schools and high-end management schools at fancy universities sing the praises.

Most of these kids (cuz yeah, even a 26 yr old is still a kid to me - lord knows I was a hot mess in my mid-20's) are not the "grew up on the pond and at 11 were sneaking in hockey practice between shifts at the steel mill or coal mine" types. Most (not all) have been in special programs and toted around by dedicated parents for more than a decade ... they DO feel special, because they are. If you are on the active roster of an NHL team (accounting for roster moves and some rounding errors) you are what, among maybe the 500 best hockey players in the world?

There are exceptions, but I think we are seeing more and more of the hardline coaches going by the wayside because it simply does not mesh with how the players need to be coached today. It is a valid opinion if people think that is a shame or that kids are too soft - but it does not change the reality that these are the players the coaches have to work with. I associate those types with the coaches/leaders who eventually cross a line and are increasing being fired or asked to "step aside" or "take on a different role" as their transgressions are revealed. All of them? Of course not, but are they more likely? I think so.

None of this is to say DG is the right choice or that he and his staff are actually doing things correctly ... somehow my feathers got ruffled by general sentiments I inferred from several posts ... and honestly I actually had to take a break to do actual work and I am not even sure that the point I set out to make is still there, but I typed a lot so I think I owe it to myself to post it. Heck, might even spur some good discussion? 

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, ska-T Chitown said:

I've gone back and forth on whether or not to comment, but what the heck, why not?
 

With the caveat that I am certainly not a manager (coach) to world class athletes - I really don't think the "toughen them up! No more fun! No more Mr. nice guy!" view is all that relevant to either the Sabres (or any professional sports team, for that matter) or in the non-sports world.

I presume that no one who posts to this board is in any team meetings or generally privy to anything that really goes on between the coaches and players and amongst the players themselves, so "there is no accountability" is just internet speculation - which is totally allowable and honestly other than cat videos, what else is the internet for? So, fine.

But from my experience I just don't see that hard-lined approach working as well as it used to. The evidence in the non-sports world grows daily that managing people based on their individual communication styles and their strengths while coaching them to improve not only their weaknesses but to also enhance and broaden their strengths is far and away the most effective way to manage young talent. I have seen it a lot in my career (I am in the nuclear engineering world, so while they are not world-class athletes many are actually amongst the brightest individuals in their field) and I know business schools and high-end management schools at fancy universities sing the praises.

Most of these kids (cuz yeah, even a 26 yr old is still a kid to me - lord knows I was a hot mess in my mid-20's) are not the "grew up on the pond and at 11 were sneaking in hockey practice between shifts at the steel mill or coal mine" types. Most (not all) have been in special programs and toted around by dedicated parents for more than a decade ... they DO feel special, because they are. If you are on the active roster of an NHL team (accounting for roster moves and some rounding errors) you are what, among maybe the 500 best hockey players in the world?

There are exceptions, but I think we are seeing more and more of the hardline coaches going by the wayside because it simply does not mesh with how the players need to be coached today. It is a valid opinion if people think that is a shame or that kids are too soft - but it does not change the reality that these are the players the coaches have to work with. I associate those types with the coaches/leaders who eventually cross a line and are increasing being fired or asked to "step aside" or "take on a different role" as their transgressions are revealed. All of them? Of course not, but are they more likely? I think so.

None of this is to say DG is the right choice or that he and his staff are actually doing things correctly ... somehow my feathers got ruffled by general sentiments I inferred from several posts ... and honestly I actually had to take a break to do actual work and I am not even sure that the point I set out to make is still there, but I typed a lot so I think I owe it to myself to post it. Heck, might even spur some good discussion? 

I think they do have an approach that fits young players.

I think it’s also fair to say that we could have tailored the roster to be in a position to be receptive to other approaches.

That is to say, not nearly exclusively field a team of young players, and by so doing necessitating the approach you outlined 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Thorny

[ska-T Chitown]

12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I think they do have an approach that fits young players.

I think it’s also fair to say that we could have tailored the roster to be in a position to be receptive to other approaches.

That is to say, not nearly exclusively field a team of young players, and by so doing necessitating the approach you outlined 

I think the Sabres will soon (lol) be a very good team for a long time, but yeah - a few more carefully selected cagey veterans would not hurt, for sure. 

I might quibble a bit with it changing the approach, in that it might just be a different implementation since the coach would adjust parts of his message or style to accommodate the addition of wiser voices on his team? But, overall - agree that the exact mix of players they have now is not ideal.

[Pimlach]

14 minutes ago, ska-T Chitown said:

I think the Sabres will soon (lol) be a very good team for a long time, but yeah - a few more carefully selected cagey veterans would not hurt, for sure. 

I might quibble a bit with it changing the approach, in that it might just be a different implementation since the coach would adjust parts of his message or style to accommodate the addition of wiser voices on his team? But, overall - agree that the exact mix of players they have now is not ideal.

And most of todays cagey veterans came up in a very similar way as the current young players.  

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

And most of todays cagey veterans came up in a very similar way as the current young players.  

No wonder I hate them, it’s generational 

Damn zoomers 

[JohninMinn.]

7 hours ago, SDS said:

Yeah, I'm not sure the give 110% every shift crowd understands what that means. You pretty much need to be on PCP, because mentally it is impossible.

I thought that's how TBD stays on the cutting edge.

[Drag0nDan]

15 hours ago, ska-T Chitown said:

I've gone back and forth on whether or not to comment, but what the heck, why not?
 

With the caveat that I am certainly not a manager (coach) to world class athletes - I really don't think the "toughen them up! No more fun! No more Mr. nice guy!" view is all that relevant to either the Sabres (or any professional sports team, for that matter) or in the non-sports world.

I presume that no one who posts to this board is in any team meetings or generally privy to anything that really goes on between the coaches and players and amongst the players themselves, so "there is no accountability" is just internet speculation - which is totally allowable and honestly other than cat videos, what else is the internet for? So, fine.

But from my experience I just don't see that hard-lined approach working as well as it used to. The evidence in the non-sports world grows daily that managing people based on their individual communication styles and their strengths while coaching them to improve not only their weaknesses but to also enhance and broaden their strengths is far and away the most effective way to manage young talent. I have seen it a lot in my career (I am in the nuclear engineering world, so while they are not world-class athletes many are actually amongst the brightest individuals in their field) and I know business schools and high-end management schools at fancy universities sing the praises.

Most of these kids (cuz yeah, even a 26 yr old is still a kid to me - lord knows I was a hot mess in my mid-20's) are not the "grew up on the pond and at 11 were sneaking in hockey practice between shifts at the steel mill or coal mine" types. Most (not all) have been in special programs and toted around by dedicated parents for more than a decade ... they DO feel special, because they are. If you are on the active roster of an NHL team (accounting for roster moves and some rounding errors) you are what, among maybe the 500 best hockey players in the world?

There are exceptions, but I think we are seeing more and more of the hardline coaches going by the wayside because it simply does not mesh with how the players need to be coached today. It is a valid opinion if people think that is a shame or that kids are too soft - but it does not change the reality that these are the players the coaches have to work with. I associate those types with the coaches/leaders who eventually cross a line and are increasing being fired or asked to "step aside" or "take on a different role" as their transgressions are revealed. All of them? Of course not, but are they more likely? I think so.

None of this is to say DG is the right choice or that he and his staff are actually doing things correctly ... somehow my feathers got ruffled by general sentiments I inferred from several posts ... and honestly I actually had to take a break to do actual work and I am not even sure that the point I set out to make is still there, but I typed a lot so I think I owe it to myself to post it. Heck, might even spur some good discussion? 

I tend to agree - there's a time and a place for the "toughen up" conversation.  When the effort in practice and the attitude is lackadaisical, you need a card to pull.  That way when you flip out and start yelling there's a bit more of an effect, than just coming off as a constant hard ass. 

You bring back a KO to be the driver in the locker room - he's there to set the example and the other players see that and understand.  If that message isn't getting through you might need to step in, but in most professional sports you need to have players holding one another accountable.