Confirmed with Link: Phil Housley Hired as Head Coach

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Ehh, with a system that had zero potential to ever be better and almost a decade of professional head coach experience.

Phil at least has unknown potential and might figure it out.

Bylsma didn't optimize his core actions, Phil's core actions don't fit his personnel.

I don't think that's better...

 

[sabrebuild]

He might figure it out at some point, but at this point I'm skeptical. The guy thinks playing Matt Tennyson in a top 4 role is beneficial to the team...

People lie. All the time. Especially in public.

I am skeptical as well, more so because of his lack of experience and being difficult to know who he will be as a head coach.

 

[sabrebuild]

Bylsma didn't optimize his core actions, Phil's core actions don't fit his personnel.

I don't think that's better...

I don’t think I said he has been better. I think I said bylsma’s moderately better results were the borderline ceiling for him as a head coach. His better results were oriented around arch conservative, predictable strategy. Which basically means imo that bylsma was never going to win in the nhl unless he had an extremely talented team.

With Phil, because of his lack of a track record, I think there is still potential that he figures things out. Not probable, but certainly more possible than bylsma ever changing.

Therefore the crapfest of the first tenish games of the Housley era are not quite as discouraging as the bylsma hire was the moment it happened.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

People lie. All the time. Especially in public.

I am skeptical as well, more so because of his lack of experience and being difficult to know who he will be as a head coach.

It's looking like Housley lies in private too, because there's no evidence he should have gotten this job.

 

[Jame]

I'm still committed to giving this thing the time it deserves...

Hell, I thought the Bylsma hire was the worst possible decision ever, and I still gave that a half season before I began tearing it apart.

I'm not remotely impressed with Housley. Not a single thing he's done so far gives me confidence. But I'll give him time to change my mind.

 

[joshjull]

Phil Housley has

Better generation, worse differential.

LHC was wondering if it took multiple years for a professional team to learn a system. Babcock turning the Leafs underlying stats around in a season is evidence against that, especially considering none of the core youngbloods were there.

Thank you for clarifying

 

[sabrebuild]

It's looking like Housley lies in private too, because there's no evidence he should have gotten this job.

He could have. Or Botts might suck at evaluating a coach like Murray did.

 

[Icicle]

So is the majority of fans on here against Housley now?
I think it's a roster issue and Housley is doing the best with what he has.

I agree with you... except Kane-Eichel completely undermines that. If I see it after 20 games my patience is done.

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

I'm pointing our your stance in another thread makes your stance here pointless. You feel we need several shrewd moves by Botts, draft a bunch of dmen and wait for them to develop and are contributing on the roster. Then MAYBE half way through Jack's new deal (Roughly your phrasing not mine), IF these things go well, we will be competitive. Not Cup contender but competive team that can make the playoffs. You also said this process will take something along the lines of 4 years.

If you believe all that then no coach will matter in the short term. (Again based on your argument not mine). You can save the development argument because your stance makes no sense. No coach is going to keep his job missing the playoffs for another 3-4 years no matter how much 'developing' he's doing. I also call BS that you would consider any coach competent if we are still unable to make the playoffs the next 3-4 years.

You seem angry about my opinions on the time it will take to be competitive. No need to take it personally.

I disagree that the window for when we’ll be competitive has anything to do with wanting good coaching, or being able to evaluate a coach.

 

[Rasmus CacOlainen]

11-01: Sabres head coach Phil Housley with Howard and Jeremy (8:15)

We are second to last ... but that's fine. f*** this approach. I'm starting to seriously turn on the coach. This team needs Torts-like character to lite a fire under the underachievers asses. If Housley can't adapt his approach (and his f***ing lines) we will continue to suck for a long long time.

 

[Rasmus CacOlainen]

We are second to last ... but that's fine. **** this approach. I'm starting to seriously turn on the coach. This team needs Torts-like character to lite a fire under the underachievers asses. If Housley can't adapt his approach (and his ****ing lines) we will continue to suck for a long long time.

Oh and the glorious statement "if they didn't do these mistakes we probably wouldn't be talking about these players." Well, no shit Phil. If they played well you wouldn't be asked why are you sticking with them......FFS, is he for real?

 

[Reddawg]

So is the majority of fans on here against Housley now?
I think it's a roster issue and Housley is doing the best with what he has.

I'm not against him at all...he has a system he's trying to implement and 10 games isn't enough time to say "well, that didn't work...lets do something completely different". There are also gaping, massive holes in this lineup that aren't his fault. He decides the kind of hockey that will be played, the players have to go out there and execute.

 

[joshjull]

You seem angry about my opinions on the time it will take to be competitive. No need to take it personally.

I disagree that the window for when we’ll be competitive has anything to do with wanting good coaching, or being able to evaluate a coach.

Take the timelines personally? No. I just think they're ridiculously pessimistic.

The window matters because no good coach would take that long to become a playoff team. That's why the two arguements don't make sense when taken together.

 

[joshjull]

Not exactly....... you have Zach Bogosian. And that's your problem because he doesn't match up with what you need in order to make your system work.

Referencing your earlier post, I am going to have to spend a bunch of time analyzing what you said about how Toronto operates on ice. Your description of it is intriguing and frankly, a bit unique to someone who's grown up playing and coaching offensive and defensive tactics and systems using references like Hockey Canada and USA Hockey - coaching seminars, video series, manuals, on ice instructional camps, etc.. I'm a level 4 coach and frankly, maybe I need a refresher course in modern concepts!

So I'm not criticizing you or anything close to that. Just looking to open up a new avenue of understanding. If you have any references - i.e.; Jack Han type of You Tube videos, etc., please pass them along ....

I do however have extreme frustration with coaches who don't understand that they need to adjust whatever they are trying to do to match the abilities of the players handed to them. And think that is part of Phil's problem. Let's also not forget who handed many of these players to this freshman head coach.

You're fine trust me. The analytics community did not find some way to re-invent the wheel. Most are nothing like Han when it comes to actually knowing the sport and being able to break it down on the ice. That's because Han is an actual hockey guy who is also a math guy. Most of the analytics crowd are rooted in math and don't have his hockey backround. Granted many of them are very smart. Tierney being one who comes up with a bunch of interesting models, charts and graphs. If understood properly they can be a useful tool to analyze stuff. But at the end of the day doesn't really help anyone that doesn't already have a strong understanding of the sport. Because they rarely if every can get too deep into the why of things. Cause that's kind of hard to do with an equation. They certainly don't break things down on the ice and cling to their modeling slavishly. I wonder sometimes if they fully understand the why part based on the sweeping assertions they try to make based on their models, graphs, charts, etc.

Because the math guys attempts to measure and understand of the sport keeps changing so does their modeling. So what was gospel a year or so a go is no longer holds as it did. Like they arguments they made over zone starts and the huge impact they had. Only to have that crushed by the fact that on average 60% of a players shifts start on the fly. Meaning that zone starts impact a specific shift but on aggregate their impact is minimal to a players production. But informative to their role. which was the more important get from that stat. Or the arguments about various Corsi variants. Oh what fun it was reading the various pissing matches over these things. One of my favorite arguemtns is Mike Kelly against many in the analytics community. He pises on Corsi they attack his attempts to lean of shots from the slot. Why its funny is neither is all that predictive of an outcome to a game and have roughly the same predictive rate. This pissing match is also emblematic to me how much more the math matters to these guys than the sport. That's not true with all of them but it is the case with many.

The basketball stuff is interesting from a basketball pov and in a very generic sense to hockey. But has little direct correlation to hockey tactics for a variety of reasons. But it doesn't prevent the world salads we get based on those things entering into hockey discussions. Even though they make little to no sense in a hockey context.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

I'm wondering if the insistence on Kane-Eichel is to bump Kane's trade value up. We can all justly believe that Kane can drive his own line and still produce, but with the current state of the team I wouldn't bank on that (and still getting ptzzzz) if I were keen on trading him for a solid return.

 

[joshjull]

I'm wondering if the insistence on Kane-Eichel is to bump Kane's trade value up. We can all justly believe that Kane can drive his own line and still produce, but with the current state of the team I wouldn't bank on that (and still getting ptzzzz) if I were keen on trading him for a solid return.

That's crossed my mind as well (Hodgson in Vancouver if you will). But I'm not sure its the case.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

You're fine trust me. The analytics community did not find some way to re-invent the wheel. Most are nothing like Han when it comes to actually knowing the sport and being able to break it down on the ice. That's because Han is an actual hockey guy who is also a math guy. Most of the analytics crowd are rooted in math and don't have his hockey backround. Granted many of them are very smart. Tierney being one who comes up with a bunch of interesting models, charts and graphs. If understood properly they can be a useful tool to analyze stuff. But at the end of the day doesn't really help anyone that doesn't already have a strong understanding of the sport. Because they rarely if every can get too deep into the why of things. Cause that's kind of hard to do with an equation. They certainly don't break things down on the ice and cling to their modeling slavishly. I wonder sometimes if they fully understand the why part based on the sweeping assertions they try to make based on their models, graphs, charts, etc.

Because the math guys attempts to measure and understand of the sport keeps changing so does their modeling. So what was gospel a year or so a go is no longer holds as it did. Like they arguments they made over zone starts and the huge impact they had. Only to have that crushed by the fact that on average 60% of a players shifts start on the fly. Meaning that zone starts impact a specific shift but on aggregate their impact is minimal to a players production. But informative to their role. which was the more important get from that stat. Or the arguments about various Corsi variants. Oh what fun it was reading the various pissing matches over these things. One of my favorite arguemtns is Mike Kelly against many in the analytics community. He pises on Corsi they attack his attempts to lean of shots from the slot. Why its funny is neither is all that predictive of an outcome to a game and have roughly the same predictive rate. This pissing match is also emblematic to me how much more the math matters to these guys than the sport. That's not true with all of them but it is the case with many.

The basketball stuff is interesting from a basketball pov and in a very generic sense to hockey. But has little direct correlation to hockey tactics for a variety of reasons. But it doesn't prevent the world salads we get based on those things entering into hockey discussions. Even though they make little to no sense in a hockey context.

Your single example of the stats community "not understanding the game" is made up. There was never a period of "zone starts are super important."

Additionally, you're trying to invalidate quantifying hockey because stats have changed with more data, like they have in every other sport.

 

[Jame]

I'm wondering if the insistence on Kane-Eichel is to bump Kane's trade value up. We can all justly believe that Kane can drive his own line and still produce, but with the current state of the team I wouldn't bank on that (and still getting ptzzzz) if I were keen on trading him for a solid return.

That's a worrisome thought...

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

That's a worrisome thought...

I'm desperate for logic these days...

 

[joshjull]

Your single example of the stats community "not understanding the game" is made up. There was never a period of "zone starts are super important."

Additionally, you're trying to invalidate quantifying hockey because stats have changed with more data, like they have in every other sport.

I gave two examples. Neither is made up and one has multiple variants.

It's not about invalidating. It's pointing out the obvious, you can't quantify hockey to the level some want to believe these numbers do. There are too many variables and moving parts involved. But it doesn't stop some from arguing as if the numbers tell the story like it does for baseball. That's especially true with the predictive modeling.

I'm not some anti stats guy either. I very much enjoy reading and processing much of what these guys produce.

 

[joshjull]

I'm still committed to giving this thing the time it deserves...

Hell, I thought the Bylsma hire was the worst possible decision ever, and I still gave that a half season before I began tearing it apart.

I'm not remotely impressed with Housley. Not a single thing he's done so far gives me confidence. But I'll give him time to change my mind.

I'm mostly in line with this thinking though not as harsh in my assessment of Housley.

 

[Fezzy126]

Bylsma didn't optimize his core actions, Phil's core actions don't fit his personnel.

I don't think that's better...

This doesn't make any sense... Are you implying that Bylsma's tactics fit his personnel? Maybe I'm incorrectly making that leap, because I fail to see how the following choices fit our personnel:

• Systematically ceding our blueline on the right side of the ice in order to use our RD's to protect the net
• Employing a system that called for the defenseman to conservatively stay in their own zone and make 2 line passes to stationary forwards
• Using our wingers to forecheck from a stationary position at the blueline following dump-ins
• Having our defensemen bail the offensive zone at the first hint of the opposition gaining possession
• Employing passive 1-2-2 for long stretches with such a young team that had a natural aggressive mindset

It has been said here many times, but overall, Bylsma's system placed least amount of value on our strongest position -center.

So all that being said, I would say Bylsma's core actions didn't fit his personnel AND he didn't optimize those core actions properly. In which case, I would say Housley is better by default...

 

[AustonsNostrils]

I'm desperate for logic these days...

You won't find logic here, once again Sabres fans, including me, have overestimated the talent on the roster and in Rochester. Our bottom 6 is the bottom 6 of a bottom feeder. The top 6 ain't no hell either, 3 of the top 6 are playing up to expectations - Eichel, Kane, Pominville - ROR is returning to form, Okposo and Reinhart have disappointed. On defense, Risto and McCabe have been below expectation, Scandella has been fine. Broke-osian is an injury we can't afford. Eff him and his Made in China body.

The goaltending has been mediocre to bad.

Here's logic - inferior talent = inferior performance = inferior results.

 

[Aladyyn]

You won't find logic here, once again Sabres fans, including me, have overestimated the talent on the roster and in Rochester. Our bottom 6 is the bottom 6 of a bottom feeder. The top 6 ain't no hell either, 3 of the top 6 are playing up to expectations - Eichel, Kane, Pominville - ROR is returning to form, Okposo and Reinhart have disappointed. On defense, Risto and McCabe have been below expectation, Scandella has been fine. Broke-osian is an injury we can't afford. Eff him and his Made in China body.

The goaltending has been mediocre to bad.

Here's logic - inferior talent = inferior performance = inferior results.

I am sure coaching has nothing to do with players playing below expectations..........................................

 

[AustonsNostrils]

As far as Bylsma vs Housley, at least under Housley I see long stretches during games where the Sabres play something resembling modern hockey and it's encouraging to see it knowing there are some talented kids who will be here next season and new players via trade.