Post-Game Talk (GBU): "We lost to THESE GUYS?!?" -Sharks fans right now

[Sabretooth]

You're missing my main point - this team isn't performing any worse than it was last season.

If you look at the first 10 Sabres games in 13/14, statistically there are almost no changes in terms of the number of goals scored (11 vs. 13) or points acquired (4 vs. 3). Also, early this season the opposition that they've faced has been of higher quality when compared to 13/14. Arguably, the Sabres overall have even less talent than they did a year ago (no Miller/Vanek/etc.).

The team is certainly performing worse. Goals and points are only loosely correlated with how the team is actually performing. All the possession stats show the sabres as starting much worse than last year, and its really not close.

As for opponents, maybe you forgot who we opened the season against last year?

2013: @wings, Sens, @pens, Lightning, Jackets, @Blackhawks, Wild, @Islanders, Canucks, Avalanche, (Bruins), (@Panthers), (@Lightning), (Stars), (@Rangers), (Ducks), (@Sharks), (@Kings), (@Ducks), (Kings)

2014: Jackets, Blackhawks, Ducks, @Hurricanes, Panthers, Bruins, @Ducks, @Kings, @Sharks, @Leafs, (Bruins), (@Pens), (Wings), (Habs), (Oilers), (Pens), (@Blues), (@Wild), (Leafs), (Sharks)

2013 Playoff teams: 7/10 [wings, pens, bolts, jackets, hawks, wild, avalanche], (16/20) [bruins, bolts, stars, rangers, ducks, sharks, kings, ducks, kings]

2014 teams in 2013 playoffs: 7/10 [jackets, hawks, ducks, bruins, ducks, kings, sharks], (15/20) [bruins, pens, wings, habs, pens, blues, wild, sharks]

In the first 10 games, we've played the same number of 2013 playoff teams this year as we did in the first 10 games last year. Ultimately, I don't see much of a difference between last years first 20 games (before Rolston got fired) and this year's schedule. Its about 80% the exact same opponents. This year we get the canes, panthers, leafs x2 and oilers as the non-playoff teams. Last year we had the sens, islanders, canucks, and panthers.

I'd probably give a slight edge to 2013 being the tougher schedule but the gap is so small it really doesn't matter. Both seasons started with extremely tough schedules, and both seasons the sabres played exceptionally bad against tough opponents, and who was coaching doesn't really make much of a difference on the results.

Its not that people are pulling out the pitchforks just because we're as bad as most of us realized we'd be. Its that for the past 9 months or so all we've been hearing about from some is how much better a coach Nolan would be and how hard he'd have the team playing even to the point where the mythical Nolan effect on its own would elevate the team from burried in the dirt below the cellar to out of the McDavid sweepstakes. When I pointed to the schedule and stats last year to show how Nolan wasn't performing any better than Rolston was and any differences in the results could very easily be explained just by looking at the quality of opponents, it was pretty much largely ignored. Its ironic to me now to see the schedule being used in defense of Nolan, but the results don't surprise me at all. I told you all last year how the team looked just as bad under Nolan as Rolston when they played against similar strength opponents, and the results so far this year are only confirming what the stats already showed for those who cared to look. Even add in the downgrades in the roster and its not hard at all to see and admit that yes, the team is worse than last year, so far.

If people want Nolan gone, it shouldn't be because of the results so far this year. The team is going to continue being bad regardless who the coach is. It should be because the things Nolan was supposed to bring - Hard work, no nonsense, blue collar, grind-it-out, give 100% and leave it all on the ice effort just doesn't seem to be there. And maybe the team just doesn't have that effort in them and there's nothing nolan can do to bring it out of them, but if thats the case then I think people would rather see structure and systems and proper handling and development of the youth - things that Nolan doesn't seem to bring to the table as strongly - and let say Gorges be the one to get in everyones faces and get them fired up and playing with some effort and pride. Its easy to tune out a coach, but nobody wants to let their teamates down.

 

[Moncton man]

Sounds like I missed an entertaining game.

It was watchable from the pre-game warm up until the opening face-off.

 

[oldgoalie]

G: MIller won his 300th.

that's all I got. I actually watched baseball instead of this wreck of a team.

 

[DrStrangelife]

No coach will make us a winner, conceded, but there's degrees of incompetence, and this is a little beyond the pale.

We should have a coach who:

1) Most importantly, views it as his prerogative to develop young players. This includes playing them, especially in situations designed to develop the skillsets they were drafted for.
2) Has some discernible offensive strategy. Players learn and develop best when they're asked to play within a smart system. I can't say for sure he doesn't have a defensive system, but we look like total shambles whenever we're in the offensive zone, just positionally, setting aside our actual success at executing the system. We dump and chase a ton and don't seem to have a sound support strategy for the puck carrier, no cycle, nothing. Everyone looks worse than they are talent-wise out there because they're not offensively supported, IMO. I see players like Myers getting frustrated and skating around like a forechecker down low, and that suggests to me even more that no one is making them take specific responsibilities out there.
3) Is willing to bench the right players for poor performance. Maybe he'll get around to it eventually, but Benoit and Meszaros have had a pretty free ride all season, e.g., even while he's got a talented kid who desperately needs ice time right behind them.

No coach is going to make us a winner, but I can watch us lose with some satisfaction that the team is getting better if I'm watching our players learn an NHL system, get good opportunities to develop their skills, and see players held accountable. That would be enough progress for this year, at least. As of right now, I'd be more likely to see, e.g., Grigorenko getting called up as a pause in his development than accelerating it, and that's just not how this team should be.

It's not that I don't agree with you. I've made the same observations as you have. But there are still 72 more games to go. Let's not rush into things!

I doubt it will make a big difference to the development of our prospects if we change the coach now or after 10 more games(for example) - assuming we continue playing as bad as now. In fact, I'm more afraid that if we rush to conclusions and start changing coaches, based on 10 games, we could cause a bigger slain to the development of our prospects than just having Nolan for, say, 10 more games.
The negative effect of Nolan coaching for a couple more games and the probability of him bringing some life/effort (and all the qualities Nolan was hired for to bring) back to the team, in my opinion, outweighs the risks and the potential benefits of changing Nolan now.

It's also important not to ignore all the circumstances we may not be aware of - all the inside stuff. (eg.For what I know, Nolan and Murray have discussed the specifics of how Reinhart should be handled, how all the young prospects should be handled. Nolan is not the main initiator over the prospects??)

For what I know, maybe after the next game Nolan will come to his senses and Benoit and Mesz will be scratched; Ennis and Moulson split.

10 games is too small of a sample.

 

[HockeyH3aven]

"It doesn’t matter what type of system you play in the world. The two main ingredients is work and effort, and we didn’t have neither"

Pretty sure one of them is talent. The other is work/effort (which is basically the same thing)