GDT Buffalo Sabres @ Florida Panthers Sat. 4/13 5pm ESPN+ MSG & WGR Radio

[Thorner]

12 hours ago, dudacek said:

Some of this seems to be more hindsight though.

Last year’s team could score with the best of them, but couldn’t keep the puck out of its own net. It had just improved by 16 points.

Is that the context that cries for changing coaches?

Adams brought in Johnson and Clifton and Greenway to address the goals-against and penalty-killing issues.

He decided he was better off waiting for someone to emerge from his trio of goalies than bringing in an outsider.

And he (my opinion) bet that he could bring in Pat Kane to fill the Quinn hole while leaning on Olofsson as his backup plan.

He did not foresee his 4 top scorers all falling of as dramatically as they did, which - far more than any of the above - killed this year’s team.

To me, it’s an excuse to say Adams wasn’t trying to make the playoffs this year.

Semantics maybe, but in my opinion, his failures were failures of execution, not conviction.

Conviction isn’t the right word. He absolutely believed we could make the playoffs. He absolutely drank some of the kool-aid of last year’s finish and honestly, if I take off my “analyze these guys on a professional level because they are professionals” hat for a moment, I actually get it:

Trend line was pointing to a playoff berth by doing nothing. It’s ok to say the quiet part out loud 

But that’s not the point. Playoffs could have been possible, even likely, but Adams could have done more to make it a lock. You can argue he shouldn’t have, but you can’t argue reasonably he couldn’t have.

It’s an issue of strategy, not conviction.

It’s not about whether you think we’ll make the playoffs. How much do you want to make the playoffs?  How many failsafes do you believe your current roster needs and how many are you willing to implement? 

No stone unturned.

Edited April 15 by Thorny

[Thorner]

11 hours ago, dudacek said:

Theres a lot in here I agree with and some I don’t, but what I want to respond to is this:

They keep changing plans and deconstructing and then reconstructing in a perpetual cycle.

It’s the single-most destructive, damaging aspect of the Pegula reign and the one that is hardest to overcome. it’s why I really want to give Adams a chance to finish what he started.

I think this is sort of a myth. At least as far as how much their desire to “change plans” has been a definitive factor. Like, the idea we aren’t giving these guys time for their plans to take hold, I don’t really buy. Not sure there’s any inherent value in stability if the result aren’t being yielded. 

Both Botterill and Adams have sort of utilized a longer form approach and really both are using a lot of the same core. It’s not that the plan is changing or that the change itself is somehow destructive, by way of, I dunno, needing a re-mould of roster to fit said new plan, in reality what’s actually happening is each GM feeling they need to trade away disgruntled star players, which resets the timeline (convenient).

Even if you disregard the convenience, the issue isn’t “changing plans” it’s disgruntled star players by way of never winning. Botterill reset his timeline with ROR and Adams did it with Eichel.

So I suppose the “deconstructing and reconstructing” part is the most important. But it’s also important to draw the distinction I am because merely “sticking with” Adams and his plan won’t yield extra results if you aren’t winning, just cause you stuck with it. The players didn’t become disgruntled because we changed plans we “changed plans” because they became disgruntled. That’ll still happen if the plan isn’t working, regardless of its seniority.

Don’t stick with it just to stick with it. Don’t make avoid making a change just to avoid making a change. You stick with it if you believe it will yield results.

And if they DO bring in a new GM at some point, it need not be another “reset the timeline” guy. Perhaps if their focus is on immediate winning this could be the case. 

Edited April 15 by Thorny

[dudacek]

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Wrong type of defenceman don't you see that?

I clearly see the argument.

I can also see how that argument falls flat if your three “skill” defencemen can also play good defence.

Nobody said the Robinson/Lapointe/Savard Canadiens had too many of the same type of defenceman. Or, if you want more recent, less once-in-a-lifetime examples, the Josi/Ellis/Subban Predators, or the Hedman/Shattenkirk/Sergachev Lightning, or the Theodore/Pietrangelo/Hanifin Knights.

There’s no doubt Power and Byram have to get a lot better in their own zone. Considering they’ve played 162 and 163 games respectively, I expect they will.

How much better they get will ultimately decide if the trade made sense or not.

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

I clearly see the argument.

I can also see how that argument falls flat if your three “skill” defencemen can also play good defence.

Nobody said the Robinson/Lapointe/Savard Canadiens had too many of the same type of defenceman. Or, if you want more recent, less once-in-a-lifetime examples, the Josi/Ellis/Subban Predators, or the Hedman/Shattenkirk/Sergachev Lightning, or the Theodore/Pietrangelo/Hanifin Knights.

There’s no doubt Power and Byram have to get a lot better in their own zone. Considering they’ve played 162 and 163 games respectively, I expect they will.

How much better they get will ultimately decide if the trade made sense or not.

From what I've seen of Byram so far is he's weak. He can't move people out of the way, he struggles in tight. He's not a good defenceman in terms of defense first. Power is weak too but he might still grow into his frame. So far I really would say Byram is an inferior version of Montour. 

The D men you list above, you have to consider the other 3 of the entire 6 and how they complimented them. Also, some of the ones you list are big bodies and good at D. 

If you want to compare this roster to a cup winning roster look at all the elements on that roster that we are missing. Tampa for example added big bodies and defenders to take them over the top. Guys like Maroon and McDonagh. The Gourdes and Goodrows and others like that were really important to that team winning. This is a whole different discussion, but the bottom line is we do not have a balanced roster and we do not defend well. The D as a whole is soft and if Dahlin is your most physical D man you're in trouble.