Krueger.....is he actually that good of a coach?

[jc17]

It's unfortunate the roster wasn't better, because we could have judged his coaching better. I personally think he is much more concerned with connecting with the players on a personal level and having his finger on the pulse of the locker room than actual on ice product. His player usage is questionable, but at the same time, the roster is crap, so not sure what exactly we should have done.

You cant really complain about the quality of the roster when you choose to give the low-quality pieces significant ice-time.

I also dont think he cares more about culture than performance. He's a professional coach, at the end of the day he wants to win. He just seems to feel strongly about playing a certain style that hasnt resulted in success.

 

[Jim Bob]

You cant really complain about the quality of the roster when you choose to give the low-quality pieces significant ice-time.

I also dont think he cares more about culture than performance. He's a professional coach, at the end of the day he wants to win. He just seems to feel strongly about playing a certain style that hasnt resulted in success.

I believe that Krueger views culture as an important, and maybe the most important, thing to improve to improve on-ice results.

He isn't into culture for culture's sake. He believes that improving the culture is critical to improving on-ice results.

 

[jc17]

News Article: - YAKUPOV ICETIME - Interview between Gregor and Krueger

A little disheartening to see the same complaints from 7 years ago

 

[joshjull]

Yeah this is frustrating. Many people were commenting on the stunted offense from the back-end throughout the season. The coach needs to use the strengths of his players

The problem with this analysis is it only focuses on 2 of the 3 outcomes from transitioning through the NZ.

The 3 possible outcomes of NZ transition

1) dump the puck into the OZ
2) enter the OZ with possession (carry in or pass)
3) NZ turnover leading to counter attack

Number #3 is almost always ignored when writers (like Chad and Lance) try to figure out why a team approaches their transition play the way they do.
Dump-Ins: The Offensive & Defensive Effects of a Trend on the Rise - The Point Data-driven hockey storytelling that gets right to the point.

Reigning coach-of-the-year Barry Trotz –

“It’s all puck management. That’s where analytics, pure possession, entry numbers doesn’t really translate. The math works for the concept of making sure you put the puck in the right areas if you can’t make a play. So, you do have, maybe a little less possession numbers but you guard yourself against counters, you guard yourself against the quick-strike, transition type things but you still maintain possession.”

Coaches are thinking of all 3 possible outcomes when they design their neutral zone approach. Its figuring out which approach, ranging from aggressive to conservative, best fits the player groups they have (forwards/dmen/goalies). They also view dump ins as much a part of their defensive game as their offensive one.

We don't have a forward group capable of taking enough advantage of a more aggressive NZ approach to make up for the uptick in chances against that would lead to. Nor do we have the goalies who could handle it either. Since both are among the worst in HD save%.


I have issues with several things Krueger does that I feel are counterproductive and listed them earlier in the thread. But I don't really have an issue with his NZ approach.

 

[Buffaloed]

He's better than a pointed stick in the eye.

 

[joshjull]

@jc17 @Fezzy126

I also think there is flawed analysis of the strengths of our defense being made by Chad and Lance's articles.

Are they a group that should be strong in transtion? Yes
Are they are group that has a lot of effective puck rushers? No

The transition strength of the 3 dmen Botts acquired (Montour/Miller/Joker) is a good first pass then joining the rush or skating the puck out of the OZ then looking to pass/dump it in. Dahlin is the only dman we have to realistically expect to consistently transition the puck from DZ to OZ with possession. Obviously none of Risto, McCabe, Scandella or Bogo are effective puck rushers.

Dahlin's game was definitely impacted by Krueger and staff tasking him with working on his defensive game. It led to a drop off in his 5v5 impact in transition and offensively. Krueger said that would happen initially when talking about it. But the idea is Dahlin gets his defensive game squared away and eventually build back up his offensive/transition game. We started to see some of that in the last month of the season before it was shut down. Hopefully he picks up there and keeps growing.

I'd say the biggest thing Krueger did with the dmen that both negatively impacted our transition game and had no discernable benefit (near or long term) was how much he benched Miller. Having Dahlin work on his defensive game was going to have a negative impact short term. But the idea was it should work out for the better for Dahlin and the team in the long run. The handling of Miller had no positives. Only negatives by hurting the transition and creating a disgruntled player.

If we really want to make our team more effective in transition and best use of defensive group. Then we need to get rid of the deadweight on defense that forces Miller to the press box or at least one of Montour, Miller and Joker to play their offside when they all dress. We also need to get better forwards to receive those good first passes from Montour, Miller and Joker. These are things Botts needs to do and so far has failed to do.

 

[joshjull]

News Article: - YAKUPOV ICETIME - Interview between Gregor and Krueger

A little disheartening to see the same complaints from 7 years ago

Could you clarify what you're getting at because I took the article as an example of Krueger protecting a young player. Something I don't have an issue with and wish we had been doing more the last couple years.

 

[jc17]

Could you clarify what you're getting at because I took the article as an example of Krueger protecting a young player. Something I don't have an issue with and wish we had been doing more the last couple years.

Some commentary on Krueger now echoes what some oilers fans were saying. I was a little surprised to see this because the prevailing story was how most Edmonton fans didnt think he got a fair shot.

For example, the conservative play. Playing for a shootout rather than trying to win in OT which, as a fan pointed out, is relevant for tie-breaking procedures. Benching Yakupov for an OT mistake, when he had multiple game winners in OT previously.

Shortening the bench severely in the 3rd during close games. I understand the value of experience, but we saw similar complaints when Dahlin seemed to find the bench for a while during 3rd periods of close games. He did make some mistakes previously, but is his youth and inexperience a greater liability than the plain poor defense by our other players? Is a hierarchy of age better than a hierarchy of skill?

It was already pointed out that he gave a disproportional amount of ice time to defenders with a net negative impact, based on the advanced stats, so big grain of salt, but its reoccurring.

Someone pointed out that he uses Hall and Eberle as an example for limited ice time, but those two averaged 3-4 minutes more per game than Yakupov as rookies. Granted, thats total ice time, not situational.

According to Oilers fans in that thread he was also very set in line combinations regardless of production and was resistant to trying new things.

I mean there were even comments back then like this

The things Kreuger brings to the table I'd rather see him do as an assistant gm or executive director of player something or other. Would promoting him be an option?

So what is concerning to me is that Ralph isnt developing as a coach. Whether it be sitting Skinner in OT, putting Zach ******* Bogosian out late in games to protect a lead, continuing to send lines that dont seem to be effective onto the ice, its the same issues 7 years apart.

And while you could argue those aren't inherently bad things, and that he has a purpose behind doing them, I dont know how someone runs through 2 pretty unsuccessful seasons and continues to be so set in their ways. He very well could have the right idea, and does just need more time, but I dont know, I'd like to see him at least experiment.

 

[slip]

On the one hand, Kreuger does not experiment and appears set in his ways. Eichel/Reinhart, for example. On the other hand, here's a guy who had no problem suiting up 7 defenseman and putting them with a different partner practically every shift over multiple games. So I don't know what to say.

 

[sabremike]

On the one hand, Kreuger does not experiment and appears set in his ways. Eichel/Reinhart, for example. On the other hand, here's a guy who had no problem suiting up 7 defenseman and putting them with a different partner practically every shift over multiple games. So I don't know what to say.

That's he's the worst of both world: Stubborn and stuck in the mud like every other dinosaur coach in the sport while his seldom attempts at progressive thinking end up being things that are both foolish and counterproductive.

 

[joshjull]

Some commentary on Krueger now echoes what some oilers fans were saying. I was a little surprised to see this because the prevailing story was how most Edmonton fans didnt think he got a fair shot.

For example, the conservative play. Playing for a shootout rather than trying to win in OT which, as a fan pointed out, is relevant for tie-breaking procedures. Benching Yakupov for an OT mistake, when he had multiple game winners in OT previously.

Krueger was conservative. Certainly more focused on shoring up our defensive play than trying to maximize our offense. That had its pros and cons. As for Yakupov, he had one OT goal his rookie year not several. Having watched him play I doubt it was just one mistake that led to his benching in OT either.

Shortening the bench severely in the 3rd during close games. I understand the value of experience, but we saw similar complaints when Dahlin seemed to find the bench for a while during 3rd periods of close games. He did make some mistakes previously, but is his youth and inexperience a greater liability than the plain poor defense by our other players? Is a hierarchy of age better than a hierarchy of skill?

Lets be accurate. Dahlin sat or played less in the 3rd period of games we had a lead or it was tied. If we were trailing though he usually played more than normal and he also played a lot on PP. All of which played to his offensive strengths while trying to minimize his exposure defensively. Which is not an unreasonable use of a very young dman who had a very tough year defensively.

It was already pointed out that he gave a disproportional amount of ice time to defenders with a net negative impact, based on the advanced stats, so big grain of salt, but its reoccurring.

That's one way to frame it. Another would be Krueger's inclination to shelter young players (Dahlin/Joker) led to him playing vet dmen more than they should. If we had better vet dmen this probably wouldn't annoy as much as it did.

According to Oilers fans in that thread he was also very set in line combinations regardless of production and was resistant to trying new things

His stubbornness with Skinner and Sam was maddening. But I had no issues with keeping LOG together as much as he did.

So what is concerning to me is that Ralph isnt developing as a coach. Whether it be sitting Skinner in OT, putting Zach ******* Bogosian out late in games to protect a lead, continuing to send lines that dont seem to be effective onto the ice, its the same issues 7 years apart.

And while you could argue those aren't inherently bad things, and that he has a purpose behind doing them, I dont know how someone runs through 2 pretty unsuccessful seasons and continues to be so set in their ways. He very well could have the right idea, and does just need more time, but I don't know, I'd like to see him at least experiment.

Krueger's conservative overall 5v5 approach makes sense with this squad. We have neither the forward group nor the goalies to take a more aggressive approach. That said within that approach he makes individual lineup decisions we've mentioned that are very frustrating. He also has poorly coached special teams.

But I don't think the parallel between his Oiler days and now is about a lack of growth as a coach. Its a lack of talent to work with. That's the common denominator between his Oiler squad and the current Sabres. Its not like the Oilers got better after Krueger. They actually got a little worse in the next two seasons.



​

 

[CrazyPsycho]

Krueger was conservative. Certainly more focused on shoring up our defensive play than trying to maximize our offense

And never changing as the season slowly tanked away because we scored 1-2 goals a game....

Their last 8 games they never scored over 2 goals a game (the last was a 3rd from the shootout). There was an OK scoring stretch in Feb, but that was when the schedule was ridiculously easy

His failure to adapt or adjust when things arent going well is extremely worrysome

 

[slip]

That's he's the worst of both world: Stubborn and stuck in the mud like every other dinosaur coach in the sport while his seldom attempts at progressive thinking end up being things that are both foolish and counterproductive.

But he's crushing it as Eichel's life coach!

 

[slip]

And never changing as the season slowly tanked away because we scored 1-2 goals a game....

Their last 8 games they never scored over 2 goals a game (the last was a 3rd from the shootout). There was an OK scoring stretch in Feb, but that was when the schedule was ridiculously easy

His failure to adapt or adjust when things arent going well is extremely worrysome

I recall an interview Kreuger gave last summer where he explicitly discussed his coaching approach which is to build systems around the talent/parts available, a sort of bottom up approach. It's apparent now that was total BS.

 

[Fezzy126]

@jc17 @Fezzy126

I also think there is flawed analysis of the strengths of our defense being made by Chad and Lance's articles.

Are they a group that should be strong in transtion? Yes
Are they are group that has a lot of effective puck rushers? No

The transition strength of the 3 dmen Botts acquired (Montour/Miller/Joker) is a good first pass then joining the rush or skating the puck out of the OZ then looking to pass/dump it in. Dahlin is the only dman we have to realistically expect to consistently transition the puck from DZ to OZ with possession. Obviously none of Risto, McCabe, Scandella or Bogo are effective puck rushers.

Dahlin's game was definitely impacted by Krueger and staff tasking him with working on his defensive game. It led to a drop off in his 5v5 impact in transition and offensively. Krueger said that would happen initially when talking about it. But the idea is Dahlin gets his defensive game squared away and eventually build back up his offensive/transition game. We started to see some of that in the last month of the season before it was shut down. Hopefully he picks up there and keeps growing.

I'd say the biggest thing Krueger did with the dmen that both negatively impacted our transition game and had no discernable benefit (near or long term) was how much he benched Miller. Having Dahlin work on his defensive game was going to have a negative impact short term. But the idea was it should work out for the better for Dahlin and the team in the long run. The handling of Miller had no positives. Only negatives by hurting the transition and creating a disgruntled player.

If we really want to make our team more effective in transition and best use of defensive group. Then we need to get rid of the deadweight on defense that forces Miller to the press box or at least one of Montour, Miller and Joker to play their offside when they all dress. We also need to get better forwards to receive those good first passes from Montour, Miller and Joker. These are things Botts needs to do and so far has failed to do.

I didn't view Lance's article in the same light as Chad's, in fact I've been highly critical of the analytics community assessment of our transition system. I personally didn't have problem with our transition game; we often gained the zone and spent quite a bit of time in the opponent's end. Our biggest weakness was turning zone possession into quality scoring chances.

I liked Lance's article because he wasn't chasing a red herring, he concisely pointed out the biggest issues:
1) Special Teams
2) Usage, particularly how Sam and Jeff were used
3) He astutely pointed out how the analytics changed because of the injuries to VO and Skinner (that was really the reason I quoted that section of the article)

As for defensemen, his sole question: "However, I need Krueger to explain how he used his defensemen at 5 on 5" - makes sense to me. But I'm not dwelling solely on the transition game. I'd like to know why the dmen never shot down the far side lane while we had the puck down low (outside of McCabe a half dozen times). It seemed like none of the dmen ever joined the cycle either. It just never seemed like we had a cohesive 5-man attack.

 

[joshjull]

I didn't view Lance's article in the same light as Chad's, in fact I've been highly critical of the analytics community assessment of our transition system. I personally didn't have problem with our transition game; we often gained the zone and spent quite a bit of time in the opponent's end. Our biggest weakness was turning zone possession into quality scoring chances.

I liked Lance's article because he wasn't chasing a red herring, he concisely pointed out the biggest issues:
1) Special Teams
2) Usage, particularly how Sam and Jeff were used
3) He astutely pointed out how the analytics changed because of the injuries to VO and Skinner (that was really the reason I quoted that section of the article)

As for defensemen, his sole question: "However, I need Krueger to explain how he used his defensemen at 5 on 5" - makes sense to me. But I'm not dwelling solely on the transition game. I'd like to know why the dmen never shot down the far side lane while we had the puck down low (outside of McCabe a half dozen times). It seemed like none of the dmen ever joined the cycle either. It just never seemed like we had a cohesive 5-man attack.

The defense not getting as involved in the OZ was an extension of the conservative coaching. Can't get caught deep if your not jumping up the wall or joining the cycle. Plus the frustrating level of focus on passes to the point needing a dman back there to receive it. I wasn't a fan of this approach.

I think focusing on the defense though when analyzing our 5v5 offensive problems is missing the main problem with our offense. Which would be the terrible overall forward group we have. I think the focus on the defense is an out growth of Dahlin's struggles this year and the attention that got. I get that but they produced the same amount of 5v5 goals/60 last year (2.29) as they did this year (2.3). In both cases that was 21st in the NHL. That's one result with Dahlin and the defense more active/involved 5v5 and one without that being the case.

They've sucked at producing 5v5 offense with three different coaches and systems. In Jack's time as a Sabre our 5v5 goals for/60 has ranked 29th, 28th, 31st, 21st and 21st. I don't think there is a system waiting to be found that is going to get this team to produce much more 5v5 offense. We need more talent up front.

This year our GA/60 ranked 8th. The previous 4 seasons it was; 20th, 19th, 27th and 26th. This year our HDCA/60 was 11th and our SCA/60 was 9th. We have a 5v5 system in place that can help suppress 5v5 goals against with one goalie who is meh and one who is terrible. If we can actually increase our offensive talent at forward while maintaining this systemic approach. We might actually start winning consistently. Add in better goaltending and who knows.

Even with the several things Krueger does that drive me nuts (like #2 on your list) or he hasn't shown himself to be good at (#1 on the list). The FAR bigger issues is the roster. I don't care who is coaching this team. If there isn't an uptick in offensive talent at forward, then I don't expect much to change with our 5v5 offense.

 

[joshjull]

And never changing as the season slowly tanked away because we scored 1-2 goals a game....

Their last 8 games they never scored over 2 goals a game (the last was a 3rd from the shootout). There was an OK scoring stretch in Feb, but that was when the schedule was ridiculously easy

His failure to adapt or adjust when things arent going well is extremely worrysome

If you're talking about never making changes like moving Skinner back with Jack or moving Sam to another line or changing up the special teams approach, etc. Then I agree with you.

If you're talking about never changing from the conservative approach to being more aggressive offensively. Then I completely disagree. We don't have the forwards or goalies to have success with that.

 

[Aladyyn]

If you're talking about never making changes like moving Skinner back with Jack or moving Sam to another line or changing up the special teams approach, etc. Then I agree with you.

If you're talking about never changing from the conservative approach to being more aggressive offensively. Then I completely disagree. We don't have the forwards or goalies to have success with that.

It's not like we've had any success with low event hockey either...

 

[joshjull]

It's not like we've had any success with low event hockey either...

Its the best we've done 5v5 in Jack's 5 seasons. That's obviously pretty sad.

You and @CrazyPsycho want to open things up more, get the defense more involved? We tried that last season. The result was the exact same level of goals scored/60 (2.29 to 2.3) but gave up more goals against/60 (2.75 to 2.37). We had a GF% last season of 45.43 to this years 49.24%

That 49.24% is sadly the best we've had in Jack's 5 seasons. Even worse last season was 2nd best. We can't score 5v5 and haven't been able to for 5 years. The problem is the forward group not really the systems. When we played more open last year they weren't good enough to turn that into more offense than we got this year with low event hockey. So we got none of the benefit from opening things up and all of the negatives from increased chances for goals against.

Until we increase the offensive talent at forward we will continue to struggle to score 5v5. There is no magic system waiting to be found that will unleash this forward group.

 

[jc17]

I looked at games in terms of events, xGF and xGA added.

Of the 25 "most eventful" games the Sabres played they tied or won even strength 50% of the time.

Of the 25 "least eventful" games they tied or won 5v5 64% of the time, which makes a pretty good case for low event hockey.

However, it could also just point to the fact that they were practicing and coached to succeed in low event games, whereas they were fighting too hard to try to change the style of game in the up-tempo games. And that the overall goal differential was pretty close the same in both types of game.

 

[Aladyyn]

Its the best we've done 5v5 in Jack's 5 seasons. That's obviously pretty sad.

You and @CrazyPsycho want to open things up more, get the defense more involved? We tried that last season. The result was the exact same level of goals scored/60 (2.29 to 2.3) but gave up more goals against/60 (2.75 to 2.37). We had a GF% last season of 45.43 to this years 49.24%

That 49.24% is sadly the best we've had in Jack's 5 seasons. Even worse last season was 2nd best. We can't score 5v5 and haven't been able to for 5 years. The problem is the forward group not really the systems. When we played more open last year they weren't good enough to turn that into more offense. So we got none of the benefit from opening things up and all of the negative in increased chances against leading to goals.

Until we increase the offensive talent at forward we will continue to struggle to score 5v5. There is no magic system waiting to be found that will unleash this forward group.

If the forward group is the problem, why does basically every forward see their production drop when they come to Buffalo?

5v5 P/60
Sheary
PIT: 2.13
BUF: 1.59

Kane
ATL/WPG: 1.8
BUF: 1.5
SJ: 1.9

O'Reilly
COL: 1.63 (including his 1st 2 seasons)
BUF: 1.26
STL: 2.15

Grant
BUF: 0.65
ANA: 1.55

Pouliot
EDM: 1.66
BUF: 1.17

Wilson
PIT: 1.67
BUF: 1.33

Foligno
BUF: 1.26
MIN: 1.53

There are some forwards who keep their numbers similar (Skinner, Vesey, Johansson) but nobody ever scores more when they play for the Sabres.

 

[Fezzy126]

The defense not getting as involved in the OZ was an extension of the conservative coaching. Can't get caught deep if your not jumping up the wall or joining the cycle. Plus the frustrating level of focus on passes to the point needing a dman back there to receive it. I wasn't a fan of this approach.

I think focusing on the defense though when analyzing our 5v5 offensive problems is missing the main problem with our offense. Which would be the terrible overall forward group we have. I think the focus on the defense is an out growth of Dahlin's struggles this year and the attention that got. I get that but they produced the same amount of 5v5 goals/60 last year (2.29) as they did this year (2.3). In both cases that was 21st in the NHL. That's one result with Dahlin and the defense more active/involved 5v5 and one without that being the case.

Well said.

They've sucked at producing 5v5 offense with three different coaches and systems. In Jack's time as a Sabre our 5v5 goals for/60 has ranked 29th, 28th, 31st, 21st and 21st. I don't think there is a system waiting to be found that is going to get this team to produce much more 5v5 offense. We need more talent up front.

Were any of those coaches good though? The reason I ask is because guys like O'Reilly, Kane, Sheary, and Vesey all had decreased even strength numbers while here. In some cases they were better both before and after they were here. I know we are particularly weak down the middle, but we had enough NHL quality forwards to score more than we have. (As I type this I notice @Aladyyn has written something similar)

For example, Conor Sheary produced 1.08, 1.15, and 0.92 G/60 in his 3 years before we acquired him. While here he scored 0.5 and 0.76. The argument from everyone was that his numbers were inflated by playing with Crosby. Well then why didn't we play him with Jack? Let Jack carry Sheary & Skinner, then we could have put Reinhart & VO around our weaker link playing out of position in Mojo. Or... if we wanted to create three lines capable of scoring, we could have put Jeff with Johan:

Vesey-Eichel-Sheary
VO-Mojo-Reinhart
Skinner-Larsson-KO

Despite the coaches spewing the message about lineup balance, they never actually tried to anything to balance it. Maybe the lineup above doesn't work, but we never got to see anything different. All year we had one line that won it's matchup, another that broke even (while playing a tough shutdown role), and two lines that got crushed.

This year our GA/60 ranked 8th. The previous 4 seasons it was; 20th, 19th, 27th and 26th. This year our HDCA/60 was 11th and our SCA/60 was 9th. We have a 5v5 system in place that can help suppress 5v5 goals against with one goalie who is meh and one who is terrible. If we can actually increase our offensive talent at forward while maintaining this systemic approach. We might actually start winning consistently. Add in better goaltending and who knows.

Even with the several things Krueger does that drive me nuts (like #2 on your list) or he hasn't shown himself to be good at (#1 on the list). The FAR bigger issues is the roster. I don't care who is coaching this team. If there isn't an uptick in offensive talent at forward, then I don't expect much to change with our 5v5 offense.

Despite everything I wrote above, I was actually encouraged with our 5v5 metrics. They took a bit of a dive halfway through the year when we ran into some injuries and tried the whole 7 defensemen juggling act. But for the most part it was our special teams and goaltending that did us in, not the 5v5 play. That in itself is encouraging.

I think this roster has NHL caliber forwards, it's the build that needs adjustment. I think we desperately need a middle 6 center that can create space for the skilled wingers. Faceoff wins and PKing with be a bonus, that's why I've had my eyes on Copp for a while now.

 

[joshjull]

If the forward group is the problem, why does basically every forward see their production drop when they come to Buffalo?

5v5 P/60
Sheary
PIT: 2.13
BUF: 1.59

Kane
ATL/WPG: 1.8
BUF: 1.5
SJ: 1.9

O'Reilly
COL: 1.63 (including his 1st 2 seasons)
BUF: 1.26
STL: 2.15

Grant
BUF: 0.65
ANA: 1.55

Pouliot
EDM: 1.66
BUF: 1.17

Wilson
PIT: 1.67
BUF: 1.33

Foligno
BUF: 1.26
MIN: 1.53

There are some forwards who keep their numbers similar (Skinner, Vesey, Johansson) but nobody ever scores more when they play for the Sabres.

This is a poorly framed and somewhat disingenuous post

1) For starters, Sheary and ROR make my point. Both came from more talented/deeper forward groups.

2) Kane's 2nd season with the Sabres was the 2nd best of his 8yr career (up to that point). He had his best goals/60 and 3rd best points/60 (.05 shy of 2nd) that year. Then obviously moved on to a deeper more talented Sharks team. Hard to argue we ruined him.

3) Using career averages for a player like Pouliot, who played one season here, is ridiculous. Pouliot as a Sabre produced better goals/60 than he did in his previous two with Oilers and better points/60 than he did in his last year as an Oiler. So no he didn't get worse when he came here relative to his play at that point of his career.

4) Derek grant? Really? The guy who bounced back and forth between the AHL/NHL for 4 years scoring no goals in 40 gms total with Sens/Flames. Its great he broke out with his 6th organization in the next season after he was a Sabre at age 27. But we hardly made him worse than he was before becoming a Sabre.

You're basically grasping at straws to keep fighting against the idea that our forward group has been the main cause of our 5v5 offensive struggles. Specifically not enough offensive talent. That's been the case since Jack/Sam arrived. This is an indictment of the GM not a defense of the coach. Its odd to see some of the same posters hammering the GM over this in his thread (rightly so) but arguing against that idea in this thread

 

[Aladyyn]

This is a poorly framed and somewhat disingenuous post

1) For starters, Sheary and ROR make my point. Both came from more talented/deeper forward groups.

2) Kane's 2nd season with the Sabres was the 2nd best of his 8yr career (up to that point). He had his best goals/60 and 3rd best points/60 (.05 shy of 2nd) that year. Then obviously moved on to a deeper more talented Sharks team. Hard to argue we ruined him.

3) Using career averages for a player like Pouliot, who played one season here, is ridiculous. Pouliot as a Sabre produced better goals/60 than he did in his previous two with Oilers and better points/60 than he did in his last year as an Oiler. So no he didn't get worse when he came here relative to his play at that point of his career.

4) Derek grant? Really? The guy who bounced back and forth between the AHL/NHL for 4 years scoring no goals in 40 gms total with Sens/Flames. Its great he broke out with his 6th organization in the next season after he was a Sabre at age 27. But we hardly made him worse than he was before becoming a Sabre.

You're basically grasping at straws to keep fighting against the idea that our forward group has been the main cause of our 5v5 offensive struggles. Specifically not enough offensive talent. That's been the case since Jack/Sam arrived. This is an indictment of the GM not a defense of the coach. Its odd to see some of the same posters hammering the GM over this in his thread (rightly so) but arguing against that idea in this thread

Does the forward group lack talent? Yes. Are they being held back by conservative coaching? Also yes. Both can be true, it's not black and white.

I also only used Pouliot's numbers from his previous stint with the Oilers, not career numbers. He was even more productive in his previous destinations.

 

[joshjull]

Well said.



Were any of those coaches good though?

Don't know.

The reason I ask is because guys like O'Reilly, Kane, Sheary, and Vesey all had decreased even strength numbers while here. In some cases they were better both before and after they were here. I know we are particularly weak down the middle, but we had enough NHL quality forwards to score more than we have. (As I type this I notice @Aladyyn has written something similar)

To me that's a weak argument for a variety of reasons. 1) ROR and Sheary played with deeper more talented forward groups before coming here. 2) Its not 100% accurate with Kane who had arguably the 2nd best season of his career (up to that point) in his 2nd season with the Sabres/8th in NHL. Then moved on to a far more talented forward group in San Jose.

But for me the most disingenuous part is just comparing career points/60 minutes. As if there were no other factors involved and we were comparing apples to apples. ROR being a prime example. His best season with the Avs was as a LW not a center. He played some center with the Avs but most of his time was on the wing. He also played with more talent. Does it make much sense to make a direct comparison of ROR's points/60 mostly as a wing with a stronger forward group in Colorado to what he did here with a weaker forward group as a two way/defensively focused center. Is the difference in the production really about systems? Or was it due to him playing an obviously tougher role was with less help?

For example, Conor Sheary produced 1.08, 1.15, and 0.92 G/60 in his 3 years before we acquired him. While here he scored 0.5 and 0.76. The argument from everyone was that his numbers were inflated by playing with Crosby. Well then why didn't we play him with Jack? Let Jack carry Sheary & Skinner, then we could have put Reinhart & VO around our weaker link playing out of position in Mojo. Or... if we wanted to create three lines capable of scoring, we could have put Jeff with Johan:

Vesey-Eichel-Sheary
VO-Mojo-Reinhart
Skinner-Larsson-KO

Despite the coaches spewing the message about lineup balance, they never actually tried to anything to balance it. Maybe the lineup above doesn't work, but we never got to see anything different. All year we had one line that won it's matchup, another that broke even (while playing a tough shutdown role), and two lines that got crushed.​

Krueger definitely needed to try more things. His only real attempt at balance was to just keep Skinner away from Jack. But when it became clear it wasn't working. He stubbornly refused to change until the last couple weeks of the season. It was maddening.

Despite everything I wrote above, I was actually encouraged with our 5v5 metrics. They took a bit of a dive halfway through the year when we ran into some injuries and tried the whole 7 defensemen juggling act. But for the most part it was our special teams and goaltending that did us in, not the 5v5 play. That in itself is encouraging.

​

Agreed

​

I think this roster has NHL caliber forwards, it's the build that needs adjustment. I think we desperately need a middle 6 center that can create space for the skilled wingers. Faceoff wins and PKing with be a bonus, that's why I've had my eyes on Copp for a while now.

I don't think we're that far apart with our takes on the forwards. We definitely need to acquire a 2/3 center. But I also think we're going to need at least one, possibly two, of Cozens, Tage, Mitts or R2 to be offensive contributor's at some point of the season in order to take a big step forward offensively. Wildcard being what Kahun can do. Was his little sample a fluke? Or a hint of things to come? No idea.