JohnC

The below link is a Paul Hamilton column about Nylander written for WGR. If Nylander, Olofsson, Pilut and maybe Borgen can make the jump up then with free agency the roster will be more competitive. https://wgr550.radio.com/articles/news/sabres-nylander-had-another-frustrating-season

A bigger factor might be he would be coming to an underachieving franchise that has a bevy of young talent on the roster and system that could make a turnaround in a reasonable period of time. The Sabres are far from being a full and well-rounded team. But the cupboard is not bare compared to his Arizona stint. If he wanted to get back into coaching this would be a good spot for him.

I would love to see him hired. Although he has been around for a long time he has a very modern and analytical view to the game. He certainly was a man ahead of his time with a leaning toward an analytical approach to the game. The more I read about him and his experience it seems that he might be more inclined to oversee a franchise as a GM than be a coach. The fact that he interviewed for the Sabre coaching job might indicate otherwise. This is the type of coach that Risto needs. If he continues on his path of hardheaded and dumb play he will not only lose playing time but also be subject to being shipped out. Some operative/fashionable hockey words prevalent in the game is structure and accountability. This is the guy who can take those concepts and put them into action.

This link is a WGR interview of Luke Lapinski talking about Dave Tippitt as a coaching candidate. This is an 8 min. segment. He was very positive about him. https://wgr550.radio.com/media/audio-channel/5-1-luke-lapinski-talks-dave-tippett-schopp-bulldog

The Islanders are a good and tough team. They play a suffocating brand of hockey that I find unpalatable. They are a team I have no interest in watching.

With respect to Watkins and Woods the question wasn't so much a talent consideration as it was an unwillingness to pay them their next big contracts. It's not a hindsight evaluation to make an assessment that both of these players were individually and collectively better than the receivers who took their places. Whether you are talking about Matthews or Benjamin neither could match the talents of the departing Bills receivers. And that was evident by their production on the field. If I recall correctly Benjamin was an in-season addition. He was traded for to add to a troubled receiving corps for a team that surprisingly was vying for a playoff spot. It's not unfair to say that deal didn't work out for us. You don't have to accept my view on the receivers in question and what transpired with them. John W, who certainly has an inside peek into the organization, pointed out that contracts more so than talent were significant factors in the decisions to let these two players go. The backdrop not only was McDermott going to fill the rosters with his players but he was also very aggressively going to rework the salary structure of this team. And that's exactly what he did here. He let two more talented receivers go who were entering free agency and brought in lesser talented players who had short term deals. It may seem that I am using hindsight to criticize those deals but I am not. It was these types of tough minded talent and money/contract transactions that gave this organization the flexibility to aggressively participate in the free agency market.

I don't agree that this staff believed that Jordan Matthews was better than Robert Woods or that Kelvin Benjamin was an improvement on Sammy Watkins, catch radius and all. The primary reason for the departing receivers vs the incoming receivers revolved around the issue of contracts and not talent level. I don't know of many people who would believe that the ineffective Benjamin was nearly as talented as Watkins. And I would make the same judgment that Woods was much more talented than Matthews. Again, the issue relating to the departing players had more to do with the impending contracts than it was over talent. This regime in its first two years did make a lot of moves on offense. There certainly was a lot of churning on that side of the ball. But many of those transactions were short term in nature until the cap structure was revamped. It wasn't until this offseason that the OL was addressed with better players who were signed at a higher price. The primary point of the previous post was that initially more attention was paid to the defense than to the offense which was more directly addressed this offseason. Many of the offensive transactions that you cited turned out to be short term deals where those holding pattern players were then let go. It seems to me that this offseason there was more attention and resources directed to the offense. With respect to the highlighted segment we are in a complete accord.

I agree with both your points that McDermott has done a good job with the defense, and most particularly the defensive backfield. That shouldn't be surprising because that is his background. And it is evident that McDermott and Beane are working in tandem to get players who not only fit the preferred scheme but also players who fit the coach's preferred player profile. That's a reflection of an excellent working relationship where each of them reinforces the other. On the other hand I have a more nuanced and less critical take on McDermott's offensive approach. The coach inherited a team that he was going to substantially remake. He wasn't going to be able to redo both sides of the ball all at once. In his first year there was a greater focus on the defense. While this offseason there was a greater attention to the offense with the theme of putting its qb in a position to succeed. What's interesting to watch as this team is being rebuilt is the degree of coherency throughout the football operation. No one is going to agree with all the many moves but for the most part all the moves made are understandable to an observer. This display of intelligence and thoughtfullness augurs well for the future.

In my opinion one of the most impressive feats that McDermott accomplished in his first year was remaking the backside of the defense without extravagantly spending for the replacement players. Adding players such as Poyer, Hyde and rookie Tre' White and having them seamlessly fit in his system was a tribute to his coaching and scouting talents. I'll even go a little farther in saying that the wrestling coach was masterful in his first year on the job when he got his at best average roster into the playoffs.

If you are suggesting that you have to be sober in order to give a fair assessment then I respectfully disagree. I know a number of committed drunkards who are capable of giving a fair assessment.

McDermott did win mostly with Wahley/Rex's roster because that was the team he inherited. It's not like he can take over a team and completely wipe out the roster like erasing a black board. It takes time to redo the roster and rebalance the cap. And for the most part he did accomplish that in short order. The argument you and some others make is that there wasn't a need to drastically rebuild the roster. That's not an unreasonable position to take. But the plan that the new coach had was not to build on what the prior regime did but for the most part to redo/undo it. His plan was to clean out the roster and bring in his own players and have them paid within his salary structure. This regime is entering its third year with mostly his players. The few remaining players from the prior regime will probably be dispatched in the not too distant future. An example of a player who falls in that category is Lawson. A lot of roster activity was done in this offseason including this year's drafted players. Let's be fair and allow this season to unfold before conclusively making a judgment on how he has done.

What you forget to mention is that the Bills made the playoffs in the first year of McDermott's tenure. That was the first time in a generation in his first year on the job. Even though the roster was being turned over this team was competitive.

Overall, this regime has done a terrific job in remaking the roster and rebalancing the cap in relatively short order. It took a lot of fortitude to absorb a bulk cap hit last year in order to become unfettered the next year. Our ability to bring in numerous players to reconstruct this OL from free agency and also from the draft (Ford) was impressive. Any organization that does such a major remake in a short period of time is going to make a lot of tough decisions with not all of them working out. In hindsight, the biggest mistake, if not blunder, was not drafting Mahomes or Watson when we had the opportunity to do so. If either one of those two qbs would have been selected in the prior year then there would have been no need to maneuver to select Josh Allen the next year. We then could have saved some draft picks that could have been used to address other needs instead of using them to get in position to draft our franchise qb the following year. I understand why McDermott was reluctant to draft a qb that Whaley and his scouting department evaluated. McDermott was new to his position and he didn't have his people in place yet. Although I give him and Beane high marks for their work I still believe that not getting a franchise qb that first year was a mistake.

Kiper has been a steadfast Josh Allen supporter. He was touting Allen before the momentum for him as a prospect was starting to gain speed. If Kiper has a bias it is for the Ravens. And he would be the first to acknowledge it. He had an affinity for how the former GM (Ozzie Newsome) built the Ravens, his hometown team, and for his draft philosophy. I'm not going to get caught up in his glowing report of the Bills but I do believe that he is genuine in his belief that this regime has started to smartly put things together.

What's clear is that for the most part this regime was determined from the start to clear out the remnants of the prior regime. The McBeane tandem not only didn't like the players but they didn't like the salary structure. Last year, the organization took a major cap hit in one big swoop in order to give gain cap flexibility to bring in a slew of their own players.

Poncho has gone through a lot over the past few years. He deserves a memorable and happy moment. What this warm moment demonstrates is the goodness and kindness of the Pegulas. We are fortunate to have the Pegulas as owners.

You are not getting the point. The GM will be in a better position to make better deals in the offseason compared to during last season. Why would the Sabres give up valuable assets for players such as Duchesne or Stone when they may only be rental players? That would make no sense. (The Skinner deal was altogether different. He waived his no trade clause to come to Buffalo so there was a greater chance that he would re-sign when his contract was up.) The GM in my view made a good in-season deal with the acquisition of Montour who is under a contract for another year or so. No one is against making deals when it makes sense to do so. What Plezmd1 is arguing for is making more risky deals when you are in a panic mode. I'm saying that is not a smart and strategic thing to do.

My prediction is if Oliver is on the board he will be taken. If he is not on the board Clemson's Wilkins will be taken.

If Oliver isn't available I think we will take Clemson's Wilkins. If I am right I should be praised. If I am wrong I should be ignored.

The interpretation that Plenzmd1 made of my stance is categorically wrong. What I have clearly stated all last season is that our primary deficiency had to do with the talent-level of the roster. That deficiency was not going to be sufficiently addressed during the season. That was my basic position then, as it is now. I never argued not to bring in players. Quite the contrary I have strenuously argued that better players had to be brought in to make us more competitive. That requisite change to the roster was not going to be sufficiently done during the season. Although I very much liked the Montour pickup. However, this offseason is an all together different situation than in the midst of last season. You are astute and perspicacious.

Last year's roster was last year's roster. It was for the most part set. There was little to do that was going to alter the course of the season during the season unless you were willing to give up young assets for making some marginal expedient moves that would have in the end set us back. If you think that I was against the Montour trade, you are wrong. If you think that I don't want the GM to use his assets to add talent this offseason, then again you are wrong. While you were in a constant state of frenzy and despair last year I argued to stay the course with the rebuilding plan and not act out of desperation. I still am advocating for the same thing. However, that doesn't mean that I'm against making deals that will upgrade the roster when we are in a position to do so. That would make no sense. You thinking that that is what I am advocating for is extraordinarily off the mark. While you were exhaustingly chasing your imaginary bogeyman I kept trying to encourage to focus on the real issue i.e. the roster. The best time to act is when you are in a position to do so. I believe that this offseason the organization is in a position to upgrade the roster. That's always been the underpinning of my discussions. I'm not sure you have fully grasped what I have been saying.

Review my post to Plezmd! With respect to the highlighted segment we are in accord. Contrary to how Plezmd zanily interprets what I have previously stated I have always believed that the main problem is the roster. While others look for the bogeyman I'm looking for an upgrade in talent. Some people can't accept that developing talent takes time. I do.

I don't know why you are saying my opinion has changed, when it has not? You along with some of your associates and I won't agree on the Housley issue. So let's put it aside. What I have consistently been saying is the dissatisfying record is linked to the caliber of our roster. How you interpret any of my posts contradicting that notion is not only wrong but also weird? This GM is entering the offseason with cap room and extra high round draft picks. In addition, there are teams that have good players on expiring contracts with little cap space. That is a propitious situation for the GM to make some deals to add some good players to bolster the roster. How is it that advocating for aggressive personnel action goes against anything I have previously stated? The point that I was making to a prior poster is that it isn't surprising that on systemically losing team that rarely participates in the playoffs that it isn't surprising that some players will want out of that type of situation. If you think that is surprising or wrong then you have an odd view of the hockey workplace, or any workplace for that matter. If you don't think that ROR, Lehner or Kane are more happy in their current situation than with their prior situation then you are living in a fantasy world. Please stop with the twisting and distorting. It is unbecoming.

When discussing the departure of ROR, Lehner and Kane they all went from a team with a lesser amount of talent to a team with much more talent. It's not surprising that playing for a winning team and playoff participating team is more enjoyable and rewarding. The players in the league are not stupid and unaware of their situation and team's status. They know which organizations are better managed and more likely to have more talent and are in a better situation to win. Losing not unsurprisingly has a corrosive effect, especially if has been going on for a decade or so. Players are competitive by nature, not robotic drones. They want to win! As I and others have stated in prior posts the GM has to act with urgency to improve the roster and make this a more competitive team. Otherwise, the demoralizing effect of losing will open the door for more players to want to exit.

Whaley implanted his scouting mentality into his GM role. The scout evaluates players as individuals. The GM evaluates his players as pieces to a grand puzzle. I don't want to belabor this issue and dwell on DW as the source of all this franchise's problems because I recognize that he had to work with a buffoon corpulent head coach. That certainly was an albatross that no one could have overcome. (The hiring of Ryan was an inexplicable stupendous mistake by the owner that set this franchise back.) But an objective evaluation of Whaley is that he had a constricted scouting mentality in the GM position/role. A possessed a similar fatal flaw that country Buddy Nix had as a GM. In my mind Whaley, like Buddy, was a checkers player playing in a chess tournament. He lacked the depth and broader perspective for the job he held. He was simply in over his head.