Team needs to develop culture of accountability summed up well by Jordan Nolan

[Royisgone]

I have a feeling that one of the things Eichel is personally struggling with - which most super-talented athletes probably do - is the lack of comparable skill and talent on the roster to support him. Dealing Kane would likely add even more pressure and the feeling that Eichel has to "do it all" on a nightly basis if the team is to have any chance of winning a game - something his play now seems to already reflect when he tries to outmaneuver all 5 defenders by himself.

If the Sabres trade away the limited but credible talent they have now (i.e. Kane, O'Reilly, Okposo, Reinhart) as a way of reversing some of Murray's choices in favor of a 'build-through-the-draft' process, I suspect it will prompt more impatience and eventual indifference from Eichel over time. Somehow, and I have no idea how, who or when it can happen, Botterill has to upgrade the talent level around Eichel.

Interesting. Not what I thought was coming at the end of the highlighted passage at all!

I thought you were going to say Jack is struggling because his go-to tricks for success that worked like a charm at lower levels do not work at all in the National league.

That IS a problem that highly talented payers run into. They get by at lower levels based purely on a big talent disparity with the opposition, despite perhaps harboring bad habits.

You eliminate a lot of that huge talent disparity and their bad habits become exposed; they have to push their game up and through to a new level.

Eichel is not doing that, consistently.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

You don't get to spin this nonsense.

1) Zone starts in the aggregate have minimal to no impact on production. Because the bulk of shifts (roughly 60%) start on the fly. The other 40% are split between Ozone, neutral zone and Dzone face offs. The NHL average % of shifts started in the Dzone is roughly 10-11%. Though where shift starts can impact that shifts production, it's not something that happens enough relative to total shifts taken to suppress or bump up a players yearly production. Zone starts can inform what role a player is in though. That can certainly infuence their production.

Zone starts are a proxy for overall role. By every usage metric, our best players are asked to play a more difficult role than their contemporaries.

You've also consistently underrated how good teams have zone matched over the years. How zone starts impact underlying numbers across the league and what zone usage tells us about roles are two different things. I feel like I have to explain this to you every two weeks, because you're threatened that people who haven't been to coaching clinics might have insight you don't into an aspect of the game.

2) Jack already gets a lot of Ozone faceoff usage relative to the team and is in an offensive role. So arguing he is not freed up to focus on offense makes absolutely no sense.

Jack Eichel plays against the best opposing forwards while taking a lot of d-zone draws (of late, at least). O'Reilly takes the most d-zone draws against the best remaining opponents. Their lines play virtually 100% of our most difficult minutes between the two of them, with neither driving the type of success that justifies keeping them in those roles.

3) ROR is used in our top matchup role. If he can't handle it, then along with his captain potential, we've been sold a bill of goods on him. I mean why are we paying him 7.5mil if not to play the role he is currently in? Are you suggesting we play someone else in that role and use him as basically Roy from the co-captain era? A secondary scoring center. And who should be getting top 6 ice time in his place in that role?

O'Reilly's played against worse competition but in even less favorable territory with worse teammates compared to his role under Bylsma. The usage changed have pretty much offset, and the Okposo situation has been a drag.

As for whether he can be as valuable against worse comp, Ryan Kesler won a Selke from the role you're describing. But apparently it's not hard enough for O'Reilly?

Also, when we don't have the talent to win in the space created by O'Reilly's defensive usage and his surrounding talent limits his effectiveness in tough minutes, there's no reason to keep trotting him out in those situations given the overall opportunity cost.

4) then there is the fact Zajac just started playing and Boyle Has been there for roughly half their games. So no the Devils success is not at all from what you suggest.

Okay... They've still decidedly sheltered the Hischier and Zacha lines, and those have been their highest scoring units.

That they've plugged low return situations with low ceiling defensive players, especially as more of those guys have become available, does not contradict, anything I've said.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

This is the worst take I've ever seen, but you come across like a know-nothing college aged kid, so whatever. So you've watched all the games this year and conclude there is no culture problem? LOL!

The lack and misuse of talent is a much bigger problem than whatever the perpetually shifting definition of "culture" is among you miserable old heads, and fixing those things will go a long way towards fixing the "culture" currently being blamed on a handful of competent, overmatched players.

And losing Derek Roy sure turned out to be some long term addition by subtraction, huh? Sit down.

 

[sincerity0]

Does anyone actually think it’s a leadsership problem? I just see a bunch of players that are weak minded and don’t hate to lose. Nobody likes losing in anything, but I only see one player who HATES to lose. That we Eichel. Now he’s a part of it too.

 

[Moskau]

Along with Foligno's comments, really tells you what kind of "veteran leaders" Giona and Gorges are/were, which is a shame because ostensibly what they were brought here for. Also makes it clear that no one else has stepped up to the plate to fill the void. No wonder we have no captain.

I brought this up before but was never able to find the link but there was an interview Zemgus Girgensons gave a few years ago which was incredibly damning of Gionta and Gorges. Gorges in particular was singled out. It seemed like it was mistranslated at first but it wasn't. Basically the way the tank era veterans dealt with being on a bad team was to create a team vs the world mentality. Girgensons said that anytime a player made a good play they would joke he would be traded the next day. I can't imagine that this type of atmosphere would lead to guys being accountable for mistakes. Then a few months later there was an interview with one of Nolan's assistants where he held nothing back and basically said the team was a huge joke and the locker room was chaos.

With that said I don't think this has too much residual effect other than Gorges being here. Win a few games and the atmosphere will change. Players will hate to lose when they've actually won a few games.

 

[valet]

@struckbyaparkedcar

Why are you resistant to the idea that the culture needs to change?

I don't think that any of us have even the faintest clue to what the culture is like in that locker room, tbh.

It's a little awkward to try and defend this idea that 'the culture' is bad, when we haven't defined the word sufficiently and don't know how the players interact on an interpersonal basis.

All we know right now is that we don't have the talent on ice to win at an NHL level. I think the players work hard, but they are hamstrung by a woeful bottom six, an oft injured and almost talentless D, and poor goaltending.

It is not 'culture'. It is skill. Making this about some assault on the players personhood(s) is not productive nor even about hockey. It's a projection of years of anger and mistrust, built on the foundation of years of not very good hockey teams performing as they should. It's not wrong to be angry about the results, but please. Don't make this about the character of our players. It's insulting to the great game of hockey.

 

[Djp]

This is pretty much admitting our issue is talent, not culture.

The issue is also co fifence snd belief that they are good.

You see this in football where you have young teams start strong early then it builds and they end up 10-6 and in the playoffs. Then the next season the start off losing close games ending up 2-5 to start, a play ir two in each game made they probably are 5-2 instead, then the players start to give up



Injuries have hurt the defense and the power play isn't like it was last two years. Unsure what has happened with the PP given the same players are on the fitst unit

If they were healthy with 5 of 6 top Dmen in the line up and the PP of last year buffalo likely is a few games over .500 now.

If the team can fo something lie 8-2-2 or 7-1-2 streak then culture and confidence will change.
.

 

[valet]

The issue is also co fifence snd belief that they are good.

You see this in football where you have young teams start strong early then it builds and they end up 10-6 and in the playoffs. Then the next season the start off losing close games ending up 2-5 to start, a play ir two in each game made they probably are 5-2 instead, then the players start to give up



Injuries have hurt the defense and the power play isn't like it was last two years. Unsure what has happened with the PP given the same players are on the fitst unit

If they were healthy with 5 of 6 top Dmen in the line up and the PP of last year buffalo likely is a few games over .500 now.

If the team can fo something lie 8-2-2 or 7-1-2 streak then culture and confidence will change.
.

This is just conspiracy theory nonsense. They don't believe that they're good because... they're not good. Look at the roster. Look at their performance on the ice. It makes sense.

I don't understand this disconnect. It's hysteria.

 

[joshjull]

I don't think that any of us have even the faintest clue to what the culture is like in that locker room, tbh.

It's a little awkward to try and defend this idea that 'the culture' is bad, when we haven't defined the word sufficiently and don't know how the players interact on an interpersonal basis.

All we know right now is that we don't have the talent on ice to win at an NHL level. I think the players work hard, but they are hamstrung by a woeful bottom six, an oft injured and almost talentless D, and poor goaltending.

It is not 'culture'. It is skill. Making this about some assault on the players personhood(s) is not productive nor even about hockey. It's a projection of years of anger and mistrust, built on the foundation of years of not very good hockey teams performing as they should. It's not wrong to be angry about the results, but please. Don't make this about the character of our players. It's insulting to the great game of hockey.

Attack on their personhood? Projecting? What are you talking about?

THE PLAYERS said they need a culture of accountability and its lacking right now. Let me repeat that, THE PLAYERS said they need to create a culture of accountability and its lacking right now. I happen to agree with THE PLAYERS. I also feel its fixable from within with maybe a player or two added to help. hardly a scathing indictment of the team.

Where on earth did you get the idea i said any of the stuff you've attributing to me? Or that I made up the idea that they need a culture of accoutabilty?

 

[joshjull]

Zone starts are a proxy for overall role. By every usage metric, our best players are asked to play a more difficult role than their contemporaries.

You've also consistently underrated how good teams have zone matched over the years. How zone starts impact underlying numbers across the league and what zone usage tells us about roles are two different things. I feel like I have to explain this to you every two weeks, because you're threatened that people who haven't been to coaching clinics might have insight you don't into an aspect of the game.

The idea that you need to explain zone starts to me every two weeks is has about as much truth to it as New Jersey is winning due to Boyle/Zajac getting heavy dzone starts.

From the very post you quoted "Zone starts can inform what role a player is in though. That can certainly influence their production."

Another example of you thinking you have some hidden knowledge I don't possess. When in fact I do.

Jack Eichel plays against the best opposing forwards while taking a lot of d-zone draws (of late, at least). O'Reilly takes the most d-zone draws against the best remaining opponents. Their lines play virtually 100% of our most difficult minutes between the two of them, with neither driving the type of success that justifies keeping them in those roles.

Top 3 Sabres forwards in Relative OZS%; Kane/Eichel/Pommer
bottom 3 forwards in relative DZS% Kane/Eichel/Pommer.

Also the top 3 forwards Relative DZS% are Larsson, Josefson, ROR

All these numbers clearly point to Jack in an offensive role and not being used a ton defensively.

O'Reilly's played against worse competition but in even less favorable territory with worse teammates compared to his role under Bylsma. The usage changed have pretty much offset, and the Okposo situation has been a drag.

As for whether he can be as valuable against worse comp, Ryan Kesler won a Selke from the role you're describing. But apparently it's not hard enough for O'Reilly?

Also, when we don't have the talent to win in the space created by O'Reilly's defensive usage and his surrounding talent limits his effectiveness in tough minutes, there's no reason to keep trotting him out in those situations given the overall opportunity cost.

Again not addressing whats been asked. Is ROR the type of two way center who should be playing the top 6 checking role? If he is then his Dzone starts are in line with his usage and its a non argument. If he isn't that center, then who is? And what should be done with ROR if he's moved from that role? I share some thoughts on this later.

Okay... They've still decidedly sheltered the Hischier and Zacha lines, and those have been their highest scoring units.

That they've plugged low return situations with low ceiling defensive players, especially as more of those guys have become available, does not contradict, anything I've said.

You just assumed what was going on in New Jersey. The reality is the only Devil really getting disproportionate/heavy amount of Dzone starts is Zajac. Who just returned. Hirschier is getting "sheltered" to use your word. But using just relative zone starts as the measure, Jack is actually more sheltered than Zacha.


But lets get back to the Sabres.

If you think Jack as our top offensive center and ROR as our top 6 defensive center is the wrong use of those players. Then whats the right way? And use actual players on the roster to make your case. Normally when I ask this you say they aren't being leveraged properly which is essentially just repeating that you don't think they are being used right. Its not actually a solution.

I don't see how Jack can get freed up from the opposing team always focusing on stopping him with either their top defenders or best on best match up. Its just something thats going to happen. Now ROR is a different matter, There are a few ways to approach that differently and I'd like to hear what you're thinking. I happen to think a strong defensive dpair would help him far more than any role/usage change.

Look, as much of an obnoxious ass as I can be and I'm well aware that I can be. I'm always open to ideas. As much as we butt heads, I like some of your thinking and we agree on more things than we don't. But what we don't agree on really sets us off, or at least me to state the obvious. As shocking as it may sound, I would rather move on to a less abrasive back and forth. So I do want to hear what your thinking or what you feel is a better way.

 

[joshjull]

Does anyone actually think it’s a leadsership problem? I just see a bunch of players that are weak minded and don’t hate to lose. Nobody likes losing in anything, but I only see one player who HATES to lose. That we Eichel. Now he’s a part of it too.

I think its guys that need to learn how to win more so than guys that are mental midgets. As Nolan phrased it they need to be shown. Granted he was talking about young guys but I think it can apply to the whole. I don't think Jack or ROR lacks a competitive nature or a desire to win. But the may not know how to properly focus it night to night. Getting help on that front would be good thing. Who knows maybe this players only meeting was the start of that learning process. Its not like it happens over night.

I think the bulk of whats been said by the players boils down to we need to all hold each other accountable for our play. If they can work towards that as team it would be a positive step.

 

[Buffaloed]

Lack of stability is the biggest problem with both Pegula franchises. They can't keep churning through GM's and coaches and expect to strike gold. As much as people couldn't stand Whaley/Ryan or Murray/Bylsma these guys weren't even around long enough to really establish systems. It'd be great to have more talent, but if that talent can't play together as a team, they'll get beaten by disciplined grinders. Although I want to see Housley shown the door, I hope Pegula doesn't listen to the media and fans like me. The Sabres and Bills can't develop a culture, let alone change it, until they have stability.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

The idea that you need to explain zone starts to me every two weeks is has about as much truth to it as New Jersey is winning due to Boyle/Zajac getting heavy dzone starts.

From the very post you quoted "Zone starts can inform what role a player is in though. That can certainly influence their production."

Another example of you thinking you have some hidden knowledge I don't possess. When in fact I do.

So why did you take up so much space explaining why zone starts don't really impact production - when I've only used them to broadly establish player roles?

Top 3 Sabres forwards in Relative OZS%; Kane/Eichel/Pommer
bottom 3 forwards in relative DZS% Kane/Eichel/Pommer.

Also the top 3 forwards Relative DZS% are Larsson, Josefson, ROR

All these numbers clearly point to Jack in an offensive role and not being used a ton defensively.

Eichel is 6th in DZS rate among skaters since November. Lately, the rotation has been the O'Reilly and Eichel lines with Larsson thrown in as a specialist over the RWs, but even that's been relaxed over the past few games. Again, Housley has trended towards just throwing the top six out there to hold serve.

Again not addressing whats been asked. Is ROR the type of two way center who should be playing the top 6 checking role? If he is then his Dzone starts are in line with his usage and its a non argument. If he isn't that center, then who is? And what should be done with ROR if he's moved from that role? I share some thoughts on this later.

This team shouldn't have a top six checking line role, they don't have the talent - especially after O'Reilly - to win in either the tough minutes or the subsequent mismatches. They should have a traditional scoring/scoring/checking setup like the 2011 Canucks - which is why I brought up Kesler. Him beating easier minutes by a lot while Malhotra ate thankless situations was crucial to that team's success.

Also, O'Reilly's current defensive zone usage is pronounced, even for your "top six checking centers." Among heavy D-Zone guys, it's basically him, Dubinsky/Jenner and Barkov as quality players in the top 25. Everyone else is a lower ceiling guy like Sutter or an outright specialist like Glendenning.

You just assumed what was going on in New Jersey. The reality is the only Devil really getting disproportionate/heavy amount of Dzone starts is Zajac. Who just returned. Hirschier is getting "sheltered" to use your word. But using just relative zone starts as the measure, Jack is actually more sheltered than Zacha.

Here's the greater point about the Devils usage vs ours. Regular (min 100 mins) Devils forwards who see the defensive zone least:

1. Hischier
2. MaJo
3. Bratt
4. Hall
5. Zacha
6. Palmieri

Buffalo:

1. Griffith
2. Moulson
3. Nolan
4. Pominville
5. Okposo
6. Kane

If you think Jack as our top offensive center and ROR as our top 6 defensive center is the wrong use of those players. Then whats the right way? And use actual players on the roster to make your case. Normally when I ask this you say they aren't being leveraged properly which is essentially just repeating that you don't think they are being used right. Its not actually a solution.

Whether O'Reilly and Eichel can play those roles in the broad sense, and whether those roles are optimal for them on this team are separate conversations.

The team should either pair Eichel and O'Reilly, create a checking line that doesn't involve either, or commit more resources to depth lines because they're getting all the easy minutes. I did a whole breakdown on this the last time we had this back and forth, did you miss it?

I don't see how Jack can get freed up from the opposing team always focusing on stopping him with either their top defenders or best on best match up. Its just something thats going to happen. Now ROR is a different matter, There are a few ways to approach that differently and I'd like to hear what you're thinking. I happen to think a strong defensive dpair would help him far more than any role/usage change.

True, Eichel is probably gonna get chased regardless, but Phil actually used him ahead of O'Reilly against top lines everywhere but the defensive zone early in the year, and has increased Eichel's defensive usage pretty consistently as the season has progressed.

With O'Reilly, if he's staying in his current role, we need to trade for better players or wait for the defense to get healthy. He just isn't sharing the ice with enough talent to reliably win his matchup, given his usage, in a way that will also compensate for the team's lack of depth scoring. That's why I don't think he should stay in a top 6 checking role, and we should split at least a chunk of his defensive workload across our basically vestigial bottom six.

Look, as much of an obnoxious ass as I can be and I'm well aware that I can be. I'm always open to ideas. As much as we butt heads, I like some of your thinking and we agree on more things than we don't. But what we don't agree on really sets us off, or at least me to state the obvious. As shocking as it may sound, I would rather move on to a less abrasive back and forth. So I do want to hear what your thinking or what you feel is a better way.

<3

Our current system is hyper dependent on Eichel and O'Reilly carrying play in very difficult minutes without many noticeable wrinkles to help them achieve that goal (beyond Eichel's zone start rate) and compounds tha with just nonsense decisions. Like, we're bad at offense and willing to double-shift Ryan O'Reilly, but only in the minutes least likely to lead to goals for us. That's great, guys. No wonder there's a growing sense of futility.

 

[Icicle]

I agree about the depth being killer, but injuries and Murray have been the biggest to blame for that, next to dropping Kane into a third line

 

[littletonhockeycoach]

So why did you take up so much space explaining why zone starts don't really impact production - when I've only used them to broadly establish player roles?


Eichel is 6th in DZS rate among skaters since November. Lately, the rotation has been the O'Reilly and Eichel lines with Larsson thrown in as a specialist over the RWs, but even that's been relaxed over the past few games. Again, Housley has trended towards just throwing the top six out there to hold serve.


This team shouldn't have a top six checking line role, they don't have the talent - especially after O'Reilly - to win in either the tough minutes or the subsequent mismatches. They should have a traditional scoring/scoring/checking setup like the 2011 Canucks - which is why I brought up Kesler. Him beating easier minutes by a lot while Malhotra ate thankless situations was crucial to that team's success.

Also, O'Reilly's current defensive zone usage is pronounced, even for your "top six checking centers." Among heavy D-Zone guys, it's basically him, Dubinsky/Jenner and Barkov as quality players in the top 25. Everyone else is a lower ceiling guy like Sutter or an outright specialist like Glendenning.


Here's the greater point about the Devils usage vs ours. Regular (min 100 mins) Devils forwards who see the defensive zone least:

1. Hischier
2. MaJo
3. Bratt
4. Hall
5. Zacha
6. Palmieri

Buffalo:

1. Griffith
2. Moulson
3. Nolan
4. Pominville
5. Okposo
6. Kane


Whether O'Reilly and Eichel can play those roles in the broad sense, and whether those roles are optimal for them on this team are separate conversations.

The team should either pair Eichel and O'Reilly, create a checking line that doesn't involve either, or commit more resources to depth lines because they're getting all the easy minutes. I did a whole breakdown on this the last time we had this back and forth, did you miss it?


True, Eichel is probably gonna get chased regardless, but Phil actually used him ahead of O'Reilly against top lines everywhere but the defensive zone early in the year, and has increased Eichel's defensive usage pretty consistently as the season has progressed.

With O'Reilly, if he's staying in his current role, we need to trade for better players or wait for the defense to get healthy. He just isn't sharing the ice with enough talent to reliably win his matchup, given his usage, in a way that will also compensate for the team's lack of depth scoring. That's why I don't think he should stay in a top 6 checking role, and we should split at least a chunk of his defensive workload across our basically vestigial bottom six.


<3

Our current system is hyper dependent on Eichel and O'Reilly carrying play in very difficult minutes without many noticeable wrinkles to help them achieve that goal (beyond Eichel's zone start rate) and compounds tha with just nonsense decisions. Like, we're bad at offense and willing to double-shift Ryan O'Reilly, but only in the minutes least likely to lead to goals for us. That's great, guys. No wonder there's a growing sense of futility.

I probably should stay out of this exchange but I do have to admit that you DO think outside the box a lot. And that's a good thing! Hockey coaches tend to work inside the envelopes they have learned their craft in. (I know I do...) Every once in a while, an innovator arises and if successful, then others begin to climb on board.

When I was learning the craft, the accepted approach was 1 top (scoring/offensive) line, a secondary scoring line, a checking line (usually your 3rd line) and an "energy" (4th) line - named so because they usually received so few minutes that their best way to make an impact was to throw their bodies around out on the ice. Fans usually loved the players on that line.

Frankly, that was a 1970's approach that is still very much in evidence in a lot of places today. In response, the opponent coach engaged in line matching so as to counter the effects. Checking vs scoring lines, try to get a mismatch between a team's 4 line and your 1st line so you can take advantage of the mismatch. You get the drill.....

I believe that use of analytics are changing this approach but my caveat - as it relates to the Sabres - is that their talent and skill base limits what they can and cannot do. The Sabres are IMO deficient in a number of skill areas and frequently end up putting players into roles for which they are not best equipped or able to perform in. Everyone can see that their ability to control play on the boards and corners, pick up loose pucks with any degree of consistency, etc. is deficient. Some of that is the tactical approach used. A lot more of it is (IMO) limited abilities and skill sets. (lacking upper and/or lower raw strength, native ability to control the puck in ones feet, superior peripheral vision to be able to track the puck, combined hand (stick) and foot coordination, etc.). These skills are not ubiquitous at even the NHL level and different players are better at these abilities than others are. Right now, I see the Sabres being qualitatively lower on the ability scale here than a lot of other teams and believe analytics are or will bear that out.

I agree that to be more effective offensively, Eichel needs higher caliber talent that complements his skills. However, when those adjustments are made, doesn't it just reveal just another deficiency that the team has elsewhere? To me that's managing risk and ol' Phil Housely is losing more of his hairline than normal because every game played is an exercise in risk management for him.

And I think he's trying to minimize risk to the point that mediocrity (at best) is the usual result. Others, just believe he's incompetent and/or not ready for prime time. Yeah, could be that too......

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

agree that to be more effective offensively, Eichel needs higher caliber talent that complements his skills. However, when those adjustments are made, doesn't it just reveal just another deficiency that the team has elsewhere? To me that's managing risk and ol' Phil Housely is losing more of his hairline than normal because every game played is an exercise in risk management for him.

This assumes our players are deployed so efficiently that any changes are going to be zero-sum. I just don't believe that's the case.

Even so, let's say that we make some adjustments that get Eichel and O'Reilly driving play at the cost of our bottom six getting absolutely slaughtered. Our record and overall underlying metrics remain consistent. In that situation, we've still discovered a matchup structure that gets repeatable results from our top players for the first time in the history of this core. Additionally, it lets us know that we don't have to be as thirsty for high-cost talent as we look right now, and can make large inroads simply by bolting actual defensive specialists on to the bottom of the roster.

And I think he's trying to minimize risk to the point that mediocrity (at best) is the usual result. Others, just believe he's incompetent and/or not ready for prime time. Yeah, could be that too......

It's both. Housley's decisions have been bad even relative to the constraints placed on him by talent + injuries. He's not getting sustainable positive play from a single line, and his response has been to play the units closest to breaking even in increasingly higher leverage, low return situations.

I think there's a substantial difference between being a bad team that's decisively winning a portion of the game, and being a bad team that's just barely losing all of the full 60 minutes. We're seeing the psychological impact of multiple years of the latter. That's why I've been so loud abut what I view as a reductive culture discussion that's trying to pin our flaws on the inherent personal flaws of players who are being set up to fail.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Also, I think Josh and I are good, feel free to jump in. If the tone in the first half of my post is still snotty it's because I was too lazy to nice it up further after it was sitting in my drafts for forever.

 

[AustonsNostrils]

It is not 'culture'. It is skill. Making this about some assault on the players personhood(s) is not productive nor even about hockey. It's a projection of years of anger and mistrust, built on the foundation of years of not very good hockey teams performing as they should. It's not wrong to be angry about the results, but please. Don't make this about the character of our players. It's insulting to the great game of hockey.

 

[Jame]

Even so, let's say that we make some adjustments that get Eichel and O'Reilly driving play at the cost of our bottom six getting absolutely slaughtered. Our record and overall underlying metrics remain consistent. In that situation, we've still discovered a matchup structure that gets repeatable results from our top players for the first time in the history of this core. Additionally, it lets us know that we don't have to be as thirsty for high-cost talent as we look right now, and can make large inroads simply by bolting actual defensive specialists on to the bottom of the roster.

... nailed it

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Read the book "Blackhearts." You'll see that even with talent (or capability in the book's story), culture and narrative matters. It can drive winning just as much as talent.

I'll cede that there are exceptions to every rule, but I don't see this team having the organizational foundation to build the extremely rare culture you're describing, and that goes beyond the flaws of the players. Like yes, we'd be better if Eichel or O'Reilly had Mark Messier's competitiveness, but that's a much rarer trait than simply having a coach who will deploy the talent he has intelligently.

Additionally, a lot of the guys we use as hopeful comparables for Jack - Yzerman, Sakic, etc - made their transformations into elite, complete players around absolute all-time greatness, Bowman, Roy + Claude Lemieux, Larry Robinson with Scott Stevens, etc. Those are more transcendent presences than the Dustin Browns of the world. I'm all for bringing an all-time winner into the mix, but until we find one of those, lets focus on getting better players and more effectively deploying talent.

As an aside, I don't like the arguments posed in The Captain's Class (it does stuff like ignore Bill Russell literally inventing help defense and rim protection to paint him as an unskilled emotional leader) but it's a decent work of sports history.

 

[Der Jaeger]

I'll cede that there are exceptions to every rule, but I don't see this team having the organizational foundation to build the extremely rare culture you're describing, and that goes beyond the flaws of the players. Like yes, we'd be better if Eichel or O'Reilly had Mark Messier's competitiveness, but that's a much rarer trait than simply having a coach who will deploy the talent he has intelligently.

Additionally, a lot of the guys we use as hopeful comparables for Jack - Yzerman, Sakic, etc - made their transformations into elite, complete players around absolute all-time greatness, Bowman, Roy + Claude Lemieux, Larry Robinson with Scott Stevens, etc. Those are more transcendent presences than the Dustin Browns of the world. I'm all for bringing an all-time winner into the mix, but until we find one of those, lets focus on getting better players and more effectively deploying talent.

As an aside, I don't like the arguments posed in The Captain's Class (it does stuff like ignore Bill Russell literally inventing help defense and rim protection to paint him as an unskilled emotional leader) but it's a decent work of sports history.

I think it goes beyond the talent. There's a set of norms or rules which an organization sets. Pegula set Buffalo's: character, communication, discipline, and structure. Whether you like that or not, that's what the organization is building around. Pegula brought in Botterill and Housley to double down on those traits, values, etc.

In good organizations, you get people down the ranks who believe in those traits and values. In organizations going off the rails, the organization's values are replaced by something different. And you get sub-cultures which are very cohesive but use a different set of values.

The Sabres don't need HoF leaders. They just need leaders who will preach and live by the values which the organization has pinned itself to. Andrew Ladd could do it. Chris Drury wasn't at the level of anyone you mentioned, but he could do it.

What the Sabres have now is a sub-culture building around Kane, which has values of working hard on the ice but not off the ice. That sub-culture needs to go now before Eichel and Reinhart are too developed to change.

You may be right about Brown, but a player like Ladd or Max Pac could make the type of difference needed.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Is Drury really a singular feather in the culture cap though? He had a ton of help, Briere is an all-time playoff performer, and the team wilted noticeably without secondary voices like Grier and Dumont. Then there was the question of key guys having at least a toe out the door in the face of free agency. Plus, usage wise, that team bought into being played to their strengths, somewhat in the face of conventional hockey wisdom.

As for potential adds, I don't want to gift teams relief from pants-on-head dumb contracts for the sake of intangibles, so Brown and Ladd are out. MaxPac the player is great, but MaxPac the captain is a whiny baby who played a part in making his team worse, so I feel like he'd be more of a talent guy. And hey, if you want to swap out absolutely bad players like Moulson and Nolan with better players from winning organizations? Great!

Also, I've repeatedly advocated trading Kane for a better 2 way forward, so we're good there. Glad his contract situation will force something eventually.

I just think that players are smart enough to know when they're being fed bullshit. They know the current setup has no chance for success.

 

[Der Jaeger]

Is Drury really a singular feather in the culture cap though? He had a ton of help, Briere is an all-time playoff performer, and the team wilted noticeably without secondary voices like Grier and Dumont. Then there was the question of key guys having at least a toe out the door in the face of free agency. Plus, usage wise, that team bought into being played to their strengths, somewhat in the face of conventional hockey wisdom.

At the time of the Drury trade, the team didn't have much in leadership. McKee? Briere developed as one; he wasn't a leader nor a playoff performer when Gratton was traded. Then the team brought in Grier and Numminen.

Is GMBOT going to need to find a Briere? Probably not. But he'll need to find a leader, and a couple supporting voices. Finding modern Grier's and Numminen's won't be hard. They were both well past their primes then.

As far as the player knowing what's up, you're being a tad bit cynical there.

 

[old kummelweck]

He's right, and it only took the media to get sick of asking the same guys the same questions loss after loss to finally land on Nolan, who was willing to be candid. I'd be surprised if the guys in the room had any issue with what he said. Two rings carries a lot of respect, and we can't ignore who's son he is and the weight that could carry.

Maybe this was a good swap; Nolan for Des. We can criticize the skill set (Deslauriers was arguably more skilled), but Nolan never stops moving his feet and works hard every shift. Now maybe he's finally a little more comfortable to be one of those older players in the room that can help change the culture.

On a related note, looks like he and Josefsson may be the right chemistry for Okposo and could be the type of depth scoring they are looking for.

 

[Der Jaeger]

He's right, and it only took the media to get sick of asking the same guys the same questions loss after loss to finally land on Nolan, who was willing to be candid. I'd be surprised if the guys in the room had any issue with what he said. Two rings carries a lot of respect, and we can't ignore who's son he is and the weight that could carry.

Maybe this was a good swap; Nolan for Des. We can criticize the skill set (Deslauriers was arguably more skilled), but Nolan never stops moving his feet and works hard every shift. Now maybe he's finally a little more comfortable to be one of those older players in the room that can help change the culture.

On a related note, looks like he and Josefsson may be the right chemistry for Okposo and could be the type of depth scoring they are looking for.

If it takes Nolan, warts and all on his game, to turn the ship around, I'm all for him as the 12/13 forward.