JohnC

Just freaking re-vote and get on with it. And be more diligent and make sure that the Russians don't run another influence campaign that the oldsters buy into. We Americans should know how nefarious the intruding Russians can be.

With respect to your first question the assessment of one's team definitely can and should change after you have seen your team play 3/4 of the season compared to when it starts the season. What's so surprising about that? That's common sense. The more you see allows you to make a more accurate evaluation. With respect to your question about the coach of course a coach can be bad with poor players. And the corollary is that a good coach can have bad players and still do a good job without it necessarily being reflected by the team's record. I can't say that Housley is a good coach; and I can't say that he is a bad coach. You are more ready to make a determination on him than I am at this point.

If the Sabres are 16 or 18 pts better and fall short of the 20 or plus points improvement what does it matter? To bluntly answer your question: will not meeting the benchmark change my position. I say absolutely not! You are missing the point in interpreting what I have incessantly stated. The critical issue is the current talent level of this roster and what needs to be done to add to it. I'm not fixated as much on making the playoffs as some are. I'm more interested in to what extent are the younger players getting better. I'm also very interested in the improvement of the prospects in Rochester. While you and some of your fellow zealots want Housley dispatched I don't. My position is that this franchise has gone through too many staffing changes that it has destabilized an already unstable franchise. The coaching issue can be delayed because that isn't the primary issue bedeviling this franchise. The core problem is the lack of talent. Address that issue and then address the coaching issue. What I'm saying is that your bogeyman isn't my bogeyman i.e.. Housley.

You are misinterpreting (as are many others) what I have been saying about the team and its future. I have repeatedly stated that this team as it is constituted lacked enough talent to be a serious team. How many times have I made that point? You act as if I'm oblivious to what is so blatantly obvious. While many are chasing the bogeyman of the coach I have steadfastly believed that the core problem of this team related to its level of talent. What I have stressed is that it would be an act of futility and regression if this organization made moves during this season giving up quality assets just to be contending for a wild-card position. The point I have consistently made is that it is in the offseason, especially around the draft, where more meaningful deals will be made to improve the roster. You and some of your frenzied compatriots believe that the primary problem is the coach. I don't believe that. That is not to say that he is the long-term answer as the coach but the heart of the problem revolves around the inadequate talent-level. If this dog has a lot of pee in him he can put out the fire.

People are in a state of frenzy with how things have transpired for the Sabres. Why have things seemed to have spiraled out of control? There is a reason for it that I have been pointing out for a long time. There is not enough talent on this team that relates to our ability to score. We have one dependable line that is capable of scoring. Go back and review this game. When the Sabres had a defensive lapse the other team was able to capitalize on the mistake. The Huerdeau goal with him driving from the open right side illustrates that point. The Barkov goal is another example where the opposition had a player that can convert. The Sabres had scoring chances but weren't able to take advantage of the opportunities because other than the first line the other lines are impotent. Are the Sabres giving up? I won't go that far but without question they are a deflated team. When you don't have the offensive wherewithal you are going to struggle. It doesn't matter who your coach is if your roster doesn't have enough potency throughout the lineup you are going to fail. That's the brutal reality that this team and fans are facing. Firing the HC is not going to alter the primary reason why this team is struggling. Until there is an additional infusion of talent and internal improvement the situation will not substantively change.

I haven't explicitly called you an idiot. But am I a bad person if the thought has come up with great frequency?

One of the main reasons why this rebuilding has been going on for so long is because there have been so many staff changes. This constant lurching back and forth with different front offices has set this franchise back instead of advancing its cause. I believe in this GM and support what he is doing. Let's give him the time do implement his plan.

You act as if the GM has thrown in the towel about improving the roster. The best time to make more and bigger deals is in the offseason. How do you know that Botts isn't going use some of his draft picks to make some acquisitions this offseason? With respect to Muzzin you don't know if the GM made some overtures to get him. On the other hand if the GM believes that Nylander can be a second-line forward then I wouldn't trade him. As I have repeatedly stated I'm not recommending a deal to maybe help us be more competitive for a wild-card chase this year. If the price for a deal is for a player that the organization believes can be a long-term second line player then I prefer sticking with your own player. Is Nylander that caliber of player? I don't know because I don't watch him play. But if this organization believes that he falls in that category then they shouldn't deal him off. We can forever go in circles on this topic. There comes a point where the repetition of arguments becomes acts of futility. We just have different perspectives that won't be reconciled because the positions are irreconcilable. I'm willing to be more patient than you are because I believe that the course that has been set will in the long run work out and be more sustainable. You and the majority of others are not buying it. That's okay, you are entitled to your views. The reality is that the GM has a strategy to rebuild, and that is exactly what he is doing. His roadmap is not the same roadmap that you and your cohorts want to follow. The GM is driving the bus. And the map he is following is his own.

You want to know what the time frame for becoming a serious team? Obviously, I don't know for sure because I don't know what deals Botterill is going to come up with. Because we have those additional first round picks I'm counting on him making some quality deals and signings to upgrade the roster. So if you want to know what my timeline is I would say two years. As far as the GM Murray I was willing to give him the time to do his job. It would be manifestly unfair to rush to judgment. However, when all is said and done I don't think he did a good job in building a good roster and farm system. Botterill is to an extent unwinding his handiwork. If you have a better strategy to build a more competitive team then offer it up. The approach that our GM is taking is not an outlier approach. He is doing what most GM's do when they are involved in a rebuild. You draft and develop talent. And along the way you make deals that you believe will upgrade the roster. What I know for sure is your constant frenetic chasing of bogeymen is not a solution to anything. As I have stated on many occasions the biggest obstacle that this organization has encountered is the owner hiring the wrong people to run the operation. (He made the same mistake with his football team.) The constant churning of staff within the organization destabilized more an instable franchise. This lurching back and forth with different front office staffs has set this organization back. I believe that we finally have a GM who is more strategic and more willing to invest throughout the organization. You can howl at the moon all you want. There is no quick fix and magical solution. Botterill has a plan and is executing it. I support him and what he is doing. If you want to get off the horse and ride another lame pony then that is your prerogative. The below link is a WGR interview with Brian Lawton. He has a more upbeat assessment of the Sabres and their future. https://wgr550.radio.com/media/audio-channel/02-18-brian-lawton-nhl-network-howard-and-jeremy

Now you are going from we are doomed because of our HC to we are doomed because of our GM. The GM acquired Skinner, our best goal scorer, for virtually nothing. Is there a risk that he might not sign with us? Yes, there's always a risk that a deal won't work out the way you want it to. If you are afraid of taking risks then are you arguing that we should cowardly do nothing out of fear that a transaction might not work? You are making the absurd argument that giving up any asset for a player violates my preference of not willing to trade assets for a deal that makes this team better. Stop with that foolish logic. I never said I wouldn't make a deal that made us a better team. The point that I made and you constantly are cheaply distorting is that I wasn't willing to give up a future asset for a deal that was only to make us better for a meaningless benefit of making us more competitive in a wild-card race. Now you are criticizing an organization that is playing a lot of young players because their play is hindering the team. By giving these young players significant playing time the hope is that they will get better sooner. What do you expect from them? Instant greatness? Is Jack better in his third year than his first? Is Reinhart better in his fourth year than his first? Will Ullmark be better next year compared to this year because he got major playing time this year? Will Dahlin be better in his second year compared to his rookie year? etc. etc. You point to Toronto as an example to follow. What you fail to remember is that they struggled for quite a while as the young players got better together. It's gotten to the point where you have gone crazy because of the predictable struggles of a young team. As I have stated for a long time this roster still has some glaring deficits. There is simply not enough talent to field a full roster. As it stands we don't have a legitimate second line. It's going to take time to address those needs and internally have the young players on the roster get better. If you can't handle the frustration and exasperation of following this team then watch more golf. Or drink yourself into oblivion so you don't have to soberly face the tough reality of a rebuilding team.

Let's move on and ignore each other.

You are making no sense. I don't know where you are coming from. This organization has been lurching back and forth since the Pegulas bought this team. They wasted at least three years with bad front office hires. The LaFontaine hiring and all the front office chaos got us off to a bad start. The hiring of Murray brought on a lot of tough talking and bad decisions. Finally, Pegula hired a GM who I believe is competent and has a coherent plan to rebuild the roster and organization. His first year he used to assess the organization from top to bottom. So we are still in the very early stages of a rebuild. You and others may want to saddle him with the failings of the prior regimes but I am not willing to do so. You can disagree with his rebuild strategy of mostly drafting and developing players. That's fine. However, I agree with it as being the best and most sustaining approach to take. That doesn't mean that trades and other deals won't be made like the Skinner and Pilut acquisitions but the main focus is going to be on internal player development.

I don't know what you are talking about. This roster has about half a dozen rookies or essentially rookies playing. They are learning on the job. There is an obvious developmental process going on while playing NHL games. Did you expect so many young players playing so much would result in instant success? I believe that Mittelstadt in time is going to be a good player. But right now he is struggling in his rookie year. You can say the same thing about Tage, Pilut, CJ, Ullmark and even Dahlin to a lesser and different extent. Will they be better next year? I believe so but I can't say to what extent. The GM took an approach that he is going to give the young players a lot of playing time. Collectively they are struggling. What I believe is that ultimately the extensive playing time in their rookie years will accelerate their advancement. If you have a different rebuild strategy then so state it. I'm open to different ideas. Whether you agree with the strategy or not the GM has set a course and is following it. You may disagree with it while I don't.

What solutions do you have for a team that lacks talent? They are not good enough. How long have I been saying that? They have only one line that can score. There is no genuine second line on this team. There is minimal, bordering on non-existent secondary scoring. If you change the coach does that address the talent deficit? That's the issue that you continue to skirt. What fanciful trades are you going to make in-season that is going to add talent to the roster without creating additional liabilities? With respect to the playoff race I have stated that I'm not obsessed about it for a couple of reasons. The first is that I accept the reality that there is not enough talent on the roster to qualify for the playoffs. My primary interest is the development of the young players. That's the most important takeaway I have for this season. You and many others believe that jettisoning the coach will be a solution to what actually hinders this team. I think otherwise. My belief is that until more talent is added to the roster this team is going to struggle on the ice. If you think there was going to be a quick-fix to rebuilding this team then you are living in a fantasy world.

There is no doubt that he has his type of guys. Because he has openly said so since he took the job. He wants players committed to the game both in and out of season. A player such as Dareus who was not committed to being in shape and adequately preparing in the film room was not a player he wanted on the roster. The reason why he got the job is that he convinced the owner/s that there needed to be a major overhaul of the roster and operation. Or another way of saying that is rebuild the roster and organization. You can reasonably disagree with that rebuild strategy but you can't disagree that he is implementing the plan that he set out when he took the job. I'm not comparing McDermott to Belichick. But what they each have in common is that they favor a certain profile of player and person for their roster. So without question there is a McDermott type of guy who he is going to bring in or get rid of if that player doesn't turn out to be his type of guy.

I don't understand your point? Some people are calling for dramatic action such as firing the coach and making some major deals because of their impatience with the rebuilding of the roster. I say no to that approach because I believe the course that the GM has set is the right approach to take. That's the point

It's going to be interesting to see if the GM is going to bring in AHL callups if the Sabres playoff chances statistically decline. From what he has previously stated my sense is that he would rather keep the Amerk roster in tact and have them involved in their own playoff run. He has repeatedly stated that he wants to create a culture of success throughout the system. When you have a rich system of prospects you have assets that not only can you eventually bring up but also parlay in deals. I know impatience is growing from the fandom but I believe in what he is doing. Compared to the previous GM there is a coherency and theme to how he goes about his business. What he is doing is the standard approach to rebuilding a losing organization. You restock the system with prospects and develop what you got. It takes time. But we are not as far away as many distraught people believe.

I appreciate your response. I know your response was done in a good spirit. You may be right that when I bold a word or section that it bleeds into the whole post. My reputation here has been frequently sullied for a variety of legitimate reasons. But I don't want to be accused of being a screamer because of technical problems.

Something is going on with my posting that is causing the highlighting. If you or anyone else knows what I am doing to cause it I would appreciate the assistance. I don't want to get the reputation of being a screamer. That's not the type of guy that I am.

The Patriots under BB is ahead of the coaching curve. Their OL coach is the best in the business. There is no doubt that there is less stress on their OL because of Brady's quick release. (As you noted. ) And also as you noted in the beginning of the season there is a lot of jumbling of the lines. There is a purpose behind the jumbling of players. So if called upon the players are better equipped to play multiple positions. In addition, backup line players are played on a limited basis for a purpose. So when the inevitable injuries occur the replacing players are better prepared to replace the injured player and maintain the continuity of the line. The HOF coach in NE has created an environment where there is an attention to detail and preparation for all circumstances. They go so far as to practice quickly handing the ball to the referee so at the end of the game seconds are not wasted. In a league of parity organizational culture emphasizing details does make the difference.

I didn't put it in bold print. Or deliberately do it. For some inexplicable reason it sometimes comes out that way. I can candidly say that I am not a bolder.

You have the same problem with the coach that a lot of others have. I'm not saying he is the long-term solution as a coach. I can't really make a declarative judgment on him until he has a fuller roster to work with. What I can say about the issue of the coach is that it would be a mistake to replace him at this point and then start the cycle of again of having another coach taking the reigns. My feeling is that he should be given more time and a better roster to work with before making a determination of his status. In my opinion this churning of staff would be more detrimental that beneficial.

I don't understand your response. What is the bold statement? What do you disagree with?

When the owner bought his pro teams he didn't know what he was doing. It took him a few years before he brought in some capable people in McDermott and Beane to run the Bills. The same mistake was made in hiring the wrong people to run his hockey team. You can't fault the current operators for the mistakes of their predecessors that they are now addressing. The same cycle of foolishness occurred when he bought the hockey franchise. The LaFontaine fiasco still hasn't been explained. What the enthusiastic but clueless owner did when he bought the team is that he spent like a drunken sailor for players with extended terms that weren't good. Then he brought in the bombastic Murray who created a lot of activity for little to show for it. Botterill is in his second year. It makes no sense to attach the failures of the prior regimes to him. What he is doing now is addressing personnel issues that were plaguing this team but were transacted before he got here. My main point here is if you want to criticize his personnel moves that is fair game. But to saddle him with the failures of the past before he got here is not fair.

Terrific post. The Islanders have had a legitimate good NHL roster for the past number of years. The Sabres earned 62 points last year. They were closer to being an AHL caliber of team than an authentic NHL caliber of team. It's not unreasonable to project that the Sabres should be somewhere in the range between 20-25 points better this season. As I stated in a prior post we have 6 basically rookies getting extended playing time this year. That is a lot of developing players on a NHL roster. And without question that is a major step in the right direction. Our GM made two significant acquisitions last year without giving up much. Skinner was the most impacting acquisition that was brought on without giving up much. Also, the GM was able to sign Pilut as a free agency pickup without giving up anything. If next offseason the GM could make a Skinner type of deal and a few other smaller deals that will improve the roster it will increase the pace of us moving up the ranks. When all is said and done the most contributing factor for this team to get better is the internal improvement of its young players. It's not a quick process by any means. For those who are disgruntled with this approach I say tough! There is no other better way.