HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Notices

How does the "new" core compare to the "old" core in terms of leadership/intangibles?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-17-2012, 02:21 PM
  #51
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,590
vCash: 500
Getting back to to the thread topic.

I think part of the excitement now is due to the volume of young talent being added to the system and the team.


-We have a good amount of young or on the cusp NHLers; Hodgson, Ennis, Myers, Foligno, Adam and McNabb

-Some exciting as well as solid prospects in Armia, Grigorenko,Girgensons, JGL, Pysysk, Sundher, Catenacci, McCabe, etc



Its very exciting to have so many centers on the team and in the system under 23 years old. This past draft certainly drove that number higher

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2012, 02:37 PM
  #52
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
I think breaking a team into different cores is very stupid. So I guess we both have issues with stupid ideas.
I love you right now

Quote:
When a team steps on the ice they have a core group of players the rely on to win with. They are who they are and not who you feel like defining them as.
I completely agree.

And while that group is augmented year in and out... there HAS BEEN a group that has been part of that core, year in and year out. Appointing all of them letters, was a clear indication of that

Quote:
This past season players that would fall into that category included Ehrhoff, Myers and Sekera. Yet no one dumps on them for our lack of success do they.
Did any of them have an impact on the lack of success in EACH of the last 5 years?








Quote:
I'm not saying they do. When poster says this core (however they define it) isn't good enough to win with and needs to be broken up. What exactly are they saying?
They are saying, "these guys have had 5 years", their time is up.



Quote:
Are we going to play semantic games over this now? Posters put way too much credit or blame on a select group of players IMO.
There's a reason they made up almost 45% of the teams cap space and carried ALL the letters. holding them more responsible for the last 5 years, is.... well... fair


Quote:
You disagree and feel that group is the problem or in this case Roy and his era of failure. Oddly you don't have the same take on Koivu and his "era of failure" in Minnesota. Oh wait in his case I bet its not having enough talent around him.
I haven't observed the dynamics of Minnesota's roster enough to comment

Jame is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2012, 03:28 PM
  #53
Der Jaeger
Registered User
 
Der Jaeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
We've done this dance before :

Chicago Core + Well Rounded Depth = Cup Contender
Chicago Core alone = Playoff Team
Well Rounded Depth alone = Bottom feeder

I'm not aware of anyone every stating, "The CORE is all that matters!"
If we're grouping Pominville, Vanek, Roy, Miller, and Gaustad, and calling them the "Rochester Core" because they all played together for the Amerks during the lockout, cool.

If we're defining a group of players as "core" and using that concept to build a team, then I'm not buying the concept.

- Define core.
- Determine how an interactively complex system, like a hockey team full of humans, can develop where a certain group of players, formed together, act in some sort of unified/similar manner as to form a "core," and segregate those players from others.

When you can do both of those, I'll consider the concept.

Der Jaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2012, 03:43 PM
  #54
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Jaeger View Post
If we're grouping Pominville, Vanek, Roy, Miller, and Gaustad, and calling them the "Rochester Core" because they all played together for the Amerks during the lockout, cool.

If we're defining a group of players as "core" and using that concept to build a team, then I'm not buying the concept.

- Define core.
- Determine how an interactively complex system, like a hockey team full of humans, can develop where a certain group of players, formed together, act in some sort of unified/similar manner as to form a "core," and segregate those players from others.

When you can do both of those, I'll consider the concept.
- Define Contender
- Determine how an interactively complex system, like a sport full of humans, can develop where a certain group of teams, act in some sort of unified/similar manner as to form a "contender," and segregate those teams from others.


Last edited by Chainshot: 07-17-2012 at 04:06 PM.
Jame is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2012, 03:49 PM
  #55
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,443
vCash: 500
Awards:
"Core" is often used by sports press and commentary folks as a way of defining a group of key contributors to specific team. As a descriptor, it's flawed, yet still has uses when looking at a concensus of more valued or valuable players on a given team. It's subjective.

However, the "Rochester Core" was a term coined by the current front office to describe the guys who played the lockout season in Rochester -- Vanek, Miller, Pominville, Roy, and Gaustad. Regier and to an extend Ruff have referenced them as such.

__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Chainshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2012, 03:54 PM
  #56
Der Jaeger
Registered User
 
Der Jaeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
- Define Contender
Relevance to using the term "core?"

Is that your argument to convince anyone that "core + depth = contender" is a right concept?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
- Determine how an interactively complex system, like a sport full of humans, can develop where a certain group of teams, act in some sort of unified/similar manner as to form a "contender," and segregate those teams from others.
That proves nothing in terms of the idea of "cores." Copying the style of my argument and expecting the same meaning is gibberish. What you said has nothing to do with the idea of a "core."

What you're actually saying is that groups of teams act together in a unified way to form a "super" team, segregated from other teams or groups of teams.

Gibberish. Good try though.


Last edited by Chainshot: 07-17-2012 at 04:06 PM.
Der Jaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2012, 03:57 PM
  #57
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,324
vCash: 500
yawn... offseason

- Determine how an interactively complex system, like a hockey team full of humans, can develop where a certain group of players, formed together, act in some sort of unified/similar manner as to form a "core," and segregate those players from others.


somebody please sign or trade something

Jame is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2012, 04:06 PM
  #58
Der Jaeger
Registered User
 
Der Jaeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
"Core" is often used by sports press and commentary folks as a way of defining a group of key contributors to specific team. As a descriptor, it's flawed, yet still has uses when looking at a concensus of more valued or valuable players on a given team. It's subjective.

However, the "Rochester Core" was a term coined by the current front office to describe the guys who played the lockout season in Rochester -- Vanek, Miller, Pominville, Roy, and Gaustad. Regier and to an extend Ruff have referenced them as such.
I totally buy that idea.

I completely do not buy the idea of team building through "cores." Groups of people don't work that way.

Eg: Take the stated Rochester Core (Vanek, Roy, Pominville, Gaustad, and Miller). Each of them has their own stated issues (Vanek soft, Roy a party boy, Pominville not tough, etc... all the things you listed a few pages ago). Rewind to the 2012 trade deadline with that team and the Rochester Core.

Assume the Gaustad to Nashville trade happens because it makes sense - a player on an expiring contract. Assume he wasn't move for being part of the Rochester Core.

Assume Regier works a deal with LA centered around Roy and Dustin Brown, and no other Rochester Core member is moved in that deal or any other.

Do we still need to move on from the Rochester Core? Has Brown become part of it, from a team building perspective?

If we're saying the "core" is bad, then Regier should seek to subsequently trade Vanek, Miller, and Pominville. But that's not taking into account how the Sabres, as a system, have changed with the addition of Brown.

Doesn't Brown, playing on Vanek's line, create space for Vanek? Doesn't it allow Vanek to move away from the crease at times, reducing injuries and enabling him to use his shot more?

Doesn't Brown add toughness to the team, inspiring more physical play? Won't that help Miller in the long-run, reducing instances of him getting run?

Doesn't Brown add leadership which could augment and amplify Pominville's role?

Adding Brown changes the team. He may change the way specific players on the Rochester Core play. It seems odd that these shortcomings were barely visible when post-lockout. The team was different, and the players as well.

My argument: building a team around a "core," as if two or more people can is foolish. Regier should take a look at the players as individuals and how they fit together.

Der Jaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2012, 04:10 PM
  #59
Der Jaeger
Registered User
 
Der Jaeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
yawn... offseason

- Determine how an interactively complex system, like a hockey team full of humans, can develop where a certain group of players, formed together, act in some sort of unified/similar manner as to form a "core," and segregate those players from others.


somebody please sign or trade something
Waiting for you to prove your "core + depth = cup contention" theory. . .

Der Jaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2012, 04:13 PM
  #60
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,443
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Jaeger View Post
I totally buy that idea.

I completely do not buy the idea of team building through "cores." Groups of people don't work that way.

Eg: Take the stated Rochester Core (Vanek, Roy, Pominville, Gaustad, and Miller). Each of them has their own stated issues (Vanek soft, Roy a party boy, Pominville not tough, etc... all the things you listed a few pages ago). Rewind to the 2012 trade deadline with that team and the Rochester Core.

Assume the Gaustad to Nashville trade happens because it makes sense - a player on an expiring contract. Assume he wasn't move for being part of the Rochester Core.

Assume Regier works a deal with LA centered around Roy and Dustin Brown, and no other Rochester Core member is moved in that deal or any other.

Do we still need to move on from the Rochester Core? Has Brown become part of it, from a team building perspective?

If we're saying the "core" is bad, then Regier should seek to subsequently trade Vanek, Miller, and Pominville. But that's not taking into account how the Sabres, as a system, have changed with the addition of Brown.

Doesn't Brown, playing on Vanek's line, create space for Vanek? Doesn't it allow Vanek to move away from the crease at times, reducing injuries and enabling him to use his shot more?

Doesn't Brown add toughness to the team, inspiring more physical play? Won't that help Miller in the long-run, reducing instances of him getting run?

Doesn't Brown add leadership which could augment and amplify Pominville's role?

Adding Brown changes the team. He may change the way specific players on the Rochester Core play. It seems odd that these shortcomings were barely visible when post-lockout. The team was different, and the players as well.

My argument: building a team around a "core," as if two or more people can is foolish. Regier should take a look at the players as individuals and how they fit together.

Again, "core" usually is used to describe the most important players to a given team, usually to ascribe value/importance to them.

Within the context of an individual team, the most important players often do grow in some way over the course of time -- be it good (like off-ice habits) or bad (like visible complacency on the ice). The dynamic of the most important guys to a given team could use an infusion of enthusiasm (or even fear) to break out of recent patterns. If we can go down Cliche Road, it is often a wakeup call for the guys still in the 'room.

Chainshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2012, 04:32 PM
  #61
Der Jaeger
Registered User
 
Der Jaeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
Again, "core" usually is used to describe the most important players to a given team, usually to ascribe value/importance to them.

Within the context of an individual team, the most important players often do grow in some way over the course of time -- be it good (like off-ice habits) or bad (like visible complacency on the ice). The dynamic of the most important guys to a given team could use an infusion of enthusiasm (or even fear) to break out of recent patterns. If we can go down Cliche Road, it is often a wakeup call for the guys still in the 'room.
Chain, I understand all this. No need to explain again.

I don't agree with it. I think the idea of a core has no merit.

Der Jaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2012, 05:01 PM
  #62
Stop Winnin
TANK ON BOYS
 
Stop Winnin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 8,487
vCash: 500
You guys are reading too far into the semantics of what a core is...

The fact is that this team being lead by our current leaders did not advance past the first round in 5 years and made the playoffs only 2 out of those 5 years. That tells me that something needs to change, that's all.

Stop Winnin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2012, 05:06 PM
  #63
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,443
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Jaeger View Post
Chain, I understand all this. No need to explain again.

I don't agree with it. I think the idea of a core has no merit.
As a label? Eh, it's not perfect.

Chainshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-17-2012, 05:30 PM
  #64
Der Jaeger
Registered User
 
Der Jaeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,981
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
As a label? Eh, it's not perfect.
I'm actually ok with it as a label. If the Rochester core means five players, I can live with that.

I don't agree with cores in terms of team building.

Der Jaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.