carpandean

Strike zone is narrow on hitting quarterbacks.

Funny stat line for Gilliam: 2 carries, 2 yards, 2 touchdowns.

In a potential SuperBowl season, it would be great to have that kind of an insurance policy. That said, no, I don't think many would turn down a first for him. A second? Hmmmm.....

If Mitch keeps playing like this, then Bean may actually have to make that "Trubisky for a 1st?" decision.

I assume that you're not referring to acorn ... but the other, unfortunate one.

Not to drag this out in a non-COVID thread, but (1) there are just over 6,000 U.S. death reports after (not necessarily because of) vaccination in VAERS, (2) the "disappearing" additional 6,000 were simply the "FR" (foreign) state coded entries from outside the U.S. that the CDC originally counted despite tracking only domestic vaccinations, (3) as an 'emergency authorization' vaccine, there are much broader requirements for reporting deaths subsequent to vaccination than with a fully-approved vaccination, even when it's been some time and the reporting healthcare worker doesn't believe that the vaccine was the cause, (4) non-healthcare worker can also report on VAERS. I've downloaded and viewed the raw data in the VAERS system. You can also view the original entries on OpenVAERS, including filtering by "FR" to see the 6,000 deaths that aren't listed in the CDC data set. Going through the deaths, you'll see things like a 100+ year old who "has been going downhill for years, died within 90 days of vaccination." 50% of the reported deaths are over 75 years old (far greater than the proportion of vaccinated people who are); over 90% are 50+. Finally, given the number of people fully vaccinated (over 160M in the U.S.) close to 30,000 of the people vaccinated would die per week even without COVID or the vaccine based on the normal U.S. death rate. 6,000 reports after vaccination without establishing causation is actually surprisingly low.

Fracktured Dreams

Ivy Leaguer (four years at Yale.)

Not exactly ... 2020-21: 9-9 2019-20: 17-17 2018-19: 15-19 Overall: 50-60 as the Sabres' netminder

I literally came in to make that same joke. Good show, sir.

Well, you know, there are, I'm told, times in which, given the context, they're useful, but only to an undefined, subjective point, allegedly.

He made such an impression on me last year that when I saw this thread, I thought, "who did he play for?" 🥴

FIFY

We're officially tanking if Adams claims Holtby and Jones to be our goaltending tandem.

I went to college at 5' 11", 156 lbs, but came out 6' 2", 185 lbs (and, no, I did not have a beer belly.) 18 is young, for some more than others.

Maybe. Sometimes, big deals happen at the draft (ref: Buffalo acquiring O'Reilly.)

Well ... one of these does ... every..single..year.. 😬 Hopefully, this is the year they actually do.

It is when you put "53I8008" into a calculator. 😁

Why am I seeing 5pm ET as the time, not 3pm? Paul Hamilton said it in his article, NBC did too, as did BleacherNation, etc. Edit: 3pm is the the trade freeze, isnit?

To clarify, I was assuming Sam/Jack are gone (my ideal outcome if they stay is very different), and trying to project realistic expectations on what comes out of the dust from their trades. Looking back before the two COVID seasons, the 10th and 11th worst teams (since we'll have one more team in the league) were over 20 points better than the last-place team, but 7-10 points out of the playoffs. The young kids took big steps in the second half of last season, looking like a much more competitive team, but still lost a lot (19 out of 28, if I remember correctly.) I expect the first half of the season to build off of that, so we'd like what we're seeing, but the points wouldn't be playoff pace. Then, as things gelled and improved, they start to pick up more wins/points. They'd rise up to 83 points or so by producing above a playoff place. Then, they'd luck into adding Wright to the youth movement. All-in-all, they'd be a truly competitive playoff team the following year and for a long-time after. That's a whole lot different than selling everything to finish at the very bottom and coming out with just that star center surrounded by crap. Besides, the above isn't something that a team could actually try for, unlike what we went through for Jack. I was simply saying that with reasonable expectations in the wake of losing those two players, this would be the ideal result to luck into (note the very, very small chance of them winning the lottery at 11th worst.)

Very happy that it didn't end tonight. My least favorite thing (besides seeing a team other than the Sabres win it, obviously) is when a team clinches on the road. It's just not the same. I want Tampa in 5 or 7, now.

The "best" outcome for next year (assuming rocketing to winning the Cup is not possible) would be to show marked improvement and growth with a solidified (new?) core and an answer in net, but still finish 22nd (11th-worst) and win the lottery (max increase is 10 spots) to pick Wright. 🙃