enthusiast
cybersabre his prophet
- Oct 20, 2009
- 18,625
- 5,936
Sabres Notebook: Ryan O'Reilly again producing for losing clubCongrats to John Vogl, who authored the dumbest article in the history of The Athletic. Props!
Sabres wanted to win, and that's what they got: Evaluating...
Vogl said during last season he had to be moved because his woe is me routine had grown stale and the locker room couldn’t turn around with him in it. That he had destroyed the enthusiasm and chips on the shoulders of the young players.
“He doesn’t know what he’s talking about”
Vogl watches the locker room turn it around completely now that he’s gone and reiterates the point.
“What a stupid article”
...
Vogl is the least opinionated sports writer in this town. The one opinion he has been steadfast about was removing RoR from the room was the only way forward. And he gets **** on for saying it, and he gets **** on after he’s right too.
Maybe....just maybe....even if you don’t like it....RoR had to go.
But I know...we aren’t allowed to continue to have that opinion even after the aftermath turns out the exact way predicted by those who held it.
This routine is a joke. The aftermath didn’t turnout at all like you “predicted”.
As I recall you predicted the team couldn’t possibly win with additional teen or rookie help. Yet there Dahlin is being a beast as a teenager. As is Pilut as an older rookie. And Mitts being defensively sound and creating more than Jordan Nolan or Pouliot.
I can’t seem to recall you “predicting” Skinner to score over 50 goals this year, 13 over his previous career year, while never being exposed to the woe is me O’Reilly menace.
I don’t recall you saying O’Reilly made Lehner and Ocho a disaster and that Hutton and Ulmark could only perform without O’Reilly around.
And just for kicks, I can recall a number of people who thought the trade was incredibly poor, also fully expected the team to improve with the additions made, totally unrelated to O’Reilly’s trade.
The fact that the two roster players, that haven’t quit on the team, gosh culture kills teams, have been the two worst players on the team, is just a delightful cherry on top of the ass clownery required to maintain this trade was spot on.
But by all means continue to spout on about how sad O’Reilly had to go, and not the other half of the roster that got turned over and replaced with real talent.
This is the camp I was in. That the return was underwhelming but they'd be better on net. however that position had to evolve a bit, since the RoR deal was prior to the Skinner trade.
Botts had a much easier answer to fixing the room than trading ROR.
Vasily. Glotov.
Just elevate him to the Sabres as the 14th forward and call it "development." Sit him next to ROR and room them on the road.
Problem solved.
Fixing and strengthening the team culture helps a team ride out the down periods and navigate through any distractions that pop up along the way.It is better, but now anyone saying this trade 'changed the culture!' doesn't have a leg to stand on.
When you make a move where when it is made people point out exactly why it is a terrible move in detail (the players acquired are real bad and add no value whatsoever, you created a Grand Canyon sized hole on your roster that will be almost impossible to fill, the only real thing of value is a pick who is likely half a decade away from being in the NHL) and it actually manages to be even worse than imagined the move is a total disaster that did real damage to this organization. And the narrative that ROR was negative because he was upset is still one of the most hilariously ludicrous things ever. He was on a team that lost so much they are on the list of worst teams in the history of the sport, if he was happy and upbeat THAT would be disturbing.ROR getting moved was the early stages of management remaking this team and team culture. They worked with the remaining leadership in the offseason to ensure we came into the season with a better team culture and approach. The trade was a needed shock to the system after a crappy season we just had. Not saying he specifically had to go but that something needed to be done.
It also, most importantly, handed the team over to Jack. He has stepped up to the challenge the minute it came and started taking more responsibility on a lot of fronts. Welcoming young guys, working with coaches management and players during the offseason to set the tone for camp and the season. While also working on himself as a player and person. During the season he stepped up becoming the big dog of the team. They guy who is taking control of the room between periods. They guy leading in all sorts of ways on and off the ice. Demonstrating a maturity he had not shown to this point.
Could all of the above have happened with Jack if ROR was still here? Maybe. Its one of those things that truly can’t be answered one way or the other. But I feel this is one of those trades where it was probably best for both sides to part company. No one has to be a villain for that to be the case. But its seems to be the desire of some to cast ROR or Botts as one.
That ain't it, chief.The argument in favor of keeping ROR is that the team is more talented with him on it.
That is 100% true. However, the best teams are NOT always the most talented teams. Far too many fans make the mistake that the more talented team is always going to be better.
In the case of ROR, his trade allowed Jack to be the unquestioned #1 center. Instead of ROR being out there doing the heavy lifting, Jack is taking responsibility at both ends of the ice, and the team is thriving. Yes, ROR should have been used in a different role (as the #2 scoring center). However, just the change in the way the team operates via Jack's now unquestioned leadership instead of sharing the spotlight with ROR is enough of a validation of the trade
What is being taken away from Jack? I can’t wait to hear this.That ain't it, chief.
Also can we please stop taking credit away from Jack?
I think Jack is a good enough player that he didn't need to be away from the magic negative voodoo of ROR to get to where he is now, but that's just me.What a pointless response to what I posted. You couldn’t have missed the point more.
It's the idea that Eichel somehow wouldn't be this good if ROR was still here. Completely ridiculous but sometimes used to justify the trade.What is being taken away from Jack? I can’t wait to hear this.
Didn't someone elsewhere point out how common it was for guys to break out in their 4th season in the league?It's the idea that Eichel somehow wouldn't be this good if ROR was still here. Completely ridiculous but sometimes used to justify the trade.
That ain't it, chief.
Also can we please stop taking credit away from Jack?
I think Jack is a good enough player that he didn't need to be away from the magic negative voodoo of ROR to get to where he is now, but that's just me.
Oh, also know what's really pointless? Our 2nd line.
That’s not what I’m arguing. I’m saying Jack was essentially handed the opportunity to be top dog with this trade. Thats just a fact. How he responded to that is entirely on him. That he got the chance is due to the fact that ROR got traded.It's the idea that Eichel somehow wouldn't be this good if ROR was still here. Completely ridiculous but sometimes used to justify the trade.
Didn't someone elsewhere point out how common it was for guys to break out in their 4th season in the league?