Haha
Our top 2 lines
Ville Leino – Tyler Ennis – Drew Stafford
Steve Ott – Cody Hodgson -Matt D'Agostini
That is incredibly bad.
3 Regulation Wins in the last 20
- Thread starter BloFan4Life
- Start date
Haha
Our top 2 lines
Ville Leino – Tyler Ennis – Drew Stafford
Steve Ott – Cody Hodgson -Matt D'Agostini
That is incredibly bad.
A players trade value is such because only a certain amount of players are available for trade....
It's a market.
At any given time Stafford could return a first round pick because he is a player that can provide offense and there aren't players available all the time.
If we are going to play a hypothetical game where we say "Hodgson, Stafford, Moulson, Ott, Girgensons, etc could all get us a good package in a trade, we must be good!" It doesn't really make sense.
If we're gonna to play that game, let say every team puts their top 6 guys on the trade market all at once, flooding the market. Now how many first rounders are we going to get for Stafford?
Do you see what I mean....? Guys value is based on the limited market so it's hard to claim that a guys return is indicative of our team being good.
Here's another way to look at it..
How many players on the Sabres are top 20 at their position?
krt88
Registered User
I understand that Ted Nolan has lots of support but if we are truly rebuilding, then it has to be done correctly. Tim Murray was hired to run the team and GM's need to to pick a coach they are comfortable with and not just stick with the guy who was there when you got hired. I do hope he starts an extensive coaching search after the season, because in my opinion, and I know many will disagree, Ted Nolan isn't the right guy to develop the young talent, and there is talent here! However a new coach can't wave a magic wand and suddenly were a contender. I think we will struggle to climb out of the cellar next year as well.but in the end, I'll cheer for them any which way.
Blofan....you are correct, there is talent but as been stated numerous times over the course of this year (since really Vanek left), these guys are playing one or two lines above where they should be. It's also irrelevant that they may one day be a top liner/top sixer (Hodgson/Girgs), they still have no business playing top line minutes/against top lines now.
Who cares about Nolan now, tell me who will be coach at the start of the 2015-16 season....see the Avs this year if you want a blueprint of when to bring in the right coach.
Nolan is the tank commander!!!!!!!
Who cares about Nolan now, tell me who will be coach at the start of the 2015-16 season....see the Avs this year if you want a blueprint of when to bring in the right coach.
Nolan is the tank commander!!!!!!!
BloFan4Life
Registered User
A coach that is on his last legs in the NHL and is playing for a future job in the NHL is not someone you want for a tank.
Give me a coach that is going to teach these young guys strategy.
Paxon
202* Stanley Cup Champions
I don't think Nolan's much of a coach in a league increasingly dominated by systems, match-ups, and zone starts, etc, but there is definitely not a lot of talent on this team.
The last time we had a coach who tried strategy he was canned. Remember RonRol?
Personally, I'd rather have a guy like Nolan who gets the best out of his players and allows them to play to their strengths. If an X's and O's guy comes in he might want certain players to play certain ways, instead of letting the kids play to their strengths:
Exhibit A: Myers. Nolan came in, let him play to his strengths and now he's playing the best hockey of his life.
Exhibit B: Oilers. Is it a coincidence that the oil's best year since rebuilding was under Ralph Krueger, a motivational, players coach, and that their worst years were under Renney and now Eakins who are trying to play the complicated scheme?
I'm fine with extending Nolan after this year for 14-15 and then having a long search for a head coach, I'd also like to keep Nolan along as a motivational speaker.
We're tanking, I want the kids to grow together in an environment, where they develop good habits and understand the pain of losing, so that in the future they don't try to take short cuts
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd like to make one other point......
We suck, we all (all hockey fans, players, coaches, front office, etc) know it. It's just nice to see a Buffalo coach smile, tap a player on the back and say "nice shift/play," and the player genuinely turn around smiling and having a "high five" moment. Life under Ruff & Rolson sucked all that "team" cohesiveness, comrades away.
We suck, we all (all hockey fans, players, coaches, front office, etc) know it. It's just nice to see a Buffalo coach smile, tap a player on the back and say "nice shift/play," and the player genuinely turn around smiling and having a "high five" moment. Life under Ruff & Rolson sucked all that "team" cohesiveness, comrades away.
Push Dr Tracksuit
Gerstmann 3:16
- Jun 9, 2012
- 13,239
- 3,316
A top 6 forward or a top 4 defender is worth a first rounder, every team in the league has a bunch of guys worth a 1st. Not many teams have a list ready and billboards up advertising them to the highest bidder. Put Perron, Hall, RNH, Huberdeau, Barkov, Monahan, Tavares, Jones, Weber, or Campbell on the market and Ott/Moulson/Pysyk aren't worth 1sts anymore. Also, it takes some balls to claim that Buffalo's 4 Olympiads amount to a talented group. Latvia's roster would be an average team in the AHL. Girgensons, a 19 yr old with 5 goals in 56 games, is one of their 3 best players. Jhonas won't even wear his gear long enough for his jock to stink, not to mention it was Oct. 25 the last time he saw a win. His 2.85 GAA and .905 SV% wouldn't be mistaken for good numbers by anyone. Tallinder is a vet that amounts to nothing more than a 5/6 on even an average team. Miller is a star having a very good year. Ya those guys. With the exception of Miller, claiming our Olympiads are game changing players is like claiming to be the smartest kid with downs syndrome. Also I'll take the opportunity to put this here from the last fire the coach rawr thread:
So if the Islanders offer up their franchise player(SO LIKELY), all the other players in the league will be worth less? I'm sure every team would just throw in the towel and offer 4th round picks for Moulson and Ott.
dotcommunism
Moderator
- Aug 16, 2007
- 5,182
- 3,348
So if the Islanders offer up their franchise player(SO LIKELY), all the other players in the league will be worth less? I'm sure every team would just throw in the towel and offer 4th round picks for Moulson and Ott.
I don't think that's really the point. It's more that the scarcity of available players (who are good) makes every player on the market worth more. If every player on a bad team, especially the ones under contract/team control, were available for trade then especially the ones that are pure rentals would be less desirable
There is no doubt in my mind that Nolan is not the kind of coach that takes teams to high places. But we aren't poised to go to high places in the near future.
So if he's good with young talent, players like him and work hard, and he's not detrimental, I don't mind if he's back for another year or two.
I think we all know this has a maximum expected lifespan of three years, realistically, with that number even more questionable with Murray IMO.
So if he's good with young talent, players like him and work hard, and he's not detrimental, I don't mind if he's back for another year or two.
I think we all know this has a maximum expected lifespan of three years, realistically, with that number even more questionable with Murray IMO.
Nolan is definitely not the guy long-term, but right now they don't need a better coach. Next year the roster will be another patchwork of vets on one year deals. Ristolainen, Pysyk, and just maybe the 1st rd pick will be players on the roster that need direction. Nolan will be fine with that, just not in-game strategy or pre-game planning. The rookies won't need that though, they'll need to learn how to play their position in the NHL.
Rolston was a good practice coach, but ran a system that was SO BAD that the players practically gave up and it ruined the collective attitude. Nolan tells them to "go play" without much else, but he's good for their confidence and attitude. I expect Nolan to stay next year, and he won't get fired until after the season. Pegula et al. will not embarrass him, and they might even keep him in the organization somehow.
That said, Murray without a doubt has to find a top-notch coach for the 2015-16 season.
Rolston was a good practice coach, but ran a system that was SO BAD that the players practically gave up and it ruined the collective attitude. Nolan tells them to "go play" without much else, but he's good for their confidence and attitude. I expect Nolan to stay next year, and he won't get fired until after the season. Pegula et al. will not embarrass him, and they might even keep him in the organization somehow.
That said, Murray without a doubt has to find a top-notch coach for the 2015-16 season.
joshjull
Registered User
Thats the exact opposite of what you want to do. You want young players to acclimate to the NHL and gain confidence in themselves and their game at the NHL level. Thats why youngsters are generally shielded from tougher minutes or assignments early in their career. Its also why you see young centers, even very highly touted ones, start of on the wing as an example of this. Everything is done to ease them into the league. Once they start finding their game at the NHL level then you can start introducing systems, etc.
Its also easier to pinpoint which youngsters are struggling due to lack of effort, not doing the little things or being overwhelmed when they are not drowning in system hockey. Foligno being an example of this. His struggles are his own and not due to being overwhelmed by a system. Others have really elevated their games playing in a simplified set up. Guys like Myers and Flynn
Last edited:
joshjull
Registered User
I think its impossible to make this assertion one way or another. This is a unique circumstance we have where roster decisions and playing times are not being made with winning as the #1 goal. I can't say for sure how he would do with a much better roster but I don't think this current stretch tells us much on that front.
BloFan4Life
Registered User
Nolan is the EXACT opposite of that. He hates young talent and doesn't develop them at all.
How has Foligno done with Nolan?!?! How about Pysyk?!?! Risto?!?! Grigs?!?!
Zman5778
Moderator
Girgensons has been just fine under Nolan. Myers keeps getting better. Pysyk was just fine (remember, his demotion was ONLY so he could play during the Olympics). Ruhwedel has been fine.
Risto never got a chance with Nolan.
joshjull
Registered User
So if the Islanders offer up their franchise player(SO LIKELY), all the other players in the league will be worth less? I'm sure every team would just throw in the towel and offer 4th round picks for Moulson and Ott.
No, no, no.....
The point is that it inaccurate to say "we could get a first for Stafford, Pysyk, etc.... So that means we're good!"
Gaustad brought back a first, because it was a limited market at the deadline..... A team ful of Gaustad level talent would be in last place too
The original poster listed several players on the Sabres that would get a good return on the trade market. Problem is this players wouldn't be available on the trade market. If we're going to gage a teams skill level we have to rate the trade value of our players vs the trade value of players on other teams around the league, should they become available.
Long story short, a guy being worth a first at the deadline is irrelevant when discussing te overall talent of the team.
joshjull
Registered User
C Note
Registered User
- Jan 31, 2014
- 194
- 0
No one is going to win with this roster. We have a guy in our top 6 with fewer goals than Mike Smith. Against Ottawa, our D corps was Ehrhoff, McBain, Sulzer, Weber, Ruhwedel, and Tallinder. Half the forwards we dressed have fewer goals for us than Thomas Vanek, who hasn't played for Buffalo since October, but who has scored a goal for us more recently than our goalie has won a game.
Despite all this, the players are playing hard, and team morale seems to be good. This is so critical. If the organization is committed to Tanking with a capital T, they still need to provide an environment that does not destroy team morale, that is, the ability to maintain belief and enthusiasm in organizational goals. Nolan isn't here to win, or create any systems, he's here to keep team morale afloat while we suck. As others have opined, I don't see him as the long-term answer. But for now, he's created an environment conductive to the organization's short-term goals, and that's not bad.
Despite all this, the players are playing hard, and team morale seems to be good. This is so critical. If the organization is committed to Tanking with a capital T, they still need to provide an environment that does not destroy team morale, that is, the ability to maintain belief and enthusiasm in organizational goals. Nolan isn't here to win, or create any systems, he's here to keep team morale afloat while we suck. As others have opined, I don't see him as the long-term answer. But for now, he's created an environment conductive to the organization's short-term goals, and that's not bad.
Really? I have this concept in my head and I'm having the hardest time getting it across eloquently, which is rarely a problem for me.
Appreciate the vote of confidence.
Agree.
I feel like it shakes out like this... Nolan is the coach going into next year.... If they continue to play hard and improve individually he'll stick around.
I honestly feel that he'll be given a chance to win with a better roster.... I'm not going to pretend I know how that's going to work out, but I imagine he get a chance to prove himself.
By the 2015-2016 season we should show improvement in the standings. If we are Ted stays until we stop getting better.
I have a really hard time holding anything against Nolan this year. The hand he was dealt is impossible to overcome.
He makes some questionable matchup decisions, but I honestly believe he is giving ice time solely based on effort at this point, to hammer home to the young guys that effort is how you get on the ice.
Why would he worry about matchups when
A) wins and losses aren't part of his evaluation process at this point... Accountability is.
B) we don't really have good matchups anyway.
