...

Depends on how you define "great". Quenneville, a great coach if you define "great" as the number of Cup wins a coach has been party to, was still fired. Toe Blake, by that definition, was better than a great coach. because of consecutive wins. In our time, Arbour is his equal. No one, though, beats Scotty Bowman. And Bowman might be the only truly great NHL coach, a guy who could win with any team, seemingly, and who did so throughout his entire career. None of the other "great" coaches have sustained a career like Bowman - again assuming Cup wins are the measure. All of the other "greats" won with the same team, all within the same relative time period. What does that tell you? It should tell you something. So, are we imagining another Bowman is out there waiting to be discovered, or are we going to look at the record, and realize that these "great" coaches weren't operating in a vacuum?

If you could fill in the gaps, that'd be helpful.

No. Love only occurs between suffering.

I think it was at least 3 games the goal-tending was said to be accounted for. If we had those three games we'd be up one position in the conference at 11 with 77 pts and we'd be talking about the possibility of a heroic push for a spot.

I think the argument can be made that if it weren't for a lapse in goal-tending, this would be a bubble team this season. Huh, whack-a-doodle double post.

...and love.

I think this is dead on. We, you, some of us, all of us may not like it, but I think this is "the way it is".

I think this is where the AHL has served Nylander. Unlike Mitts, I think Nylander looked fine playing with the big boys. He still needs to adjust to the NHL game, but my impression was that he wasn't surprised, held back, or intimidated by playing with adult athletes. I agree that I'd like to see Nylander with Jack. I get the impression Nylander will eventually become somewhat physical. Anyway, I'd like to see him with Jack, so we can move Samson to his own line because Samson was killing it last night and he needs his own line.

Does the home environment mean something or nothing? Does the crowd booing the enemy team help to throw off the shooter's concentration, even just a little? Is that not helping your team, even just a little? Or should we be nice and inclusive and cheer all shooters, because everyone deserves to win, no matter what team they are on? In ROR's case, should we submit to the heavy emotions surrounding his departure?

Should the home crowd have cheered ROR during the shoot out? Should they have felt empathy for him that being on a losing team for several seasons had an effect on his psyche and he let it be known to them the last time he talked to them? Should they, then, have instead wept for him during his shoot out attempt?

I watched all of the third. That's the hockey they were playing early in the season. Good to hear the crowd getting into it; they reflected what I thought was happening in the third. Nylander looks pretty good, I think he looked better than Mitts and worth keeping around.

Seriously?

Which was what? I'm presently at my kid's soccer game

I really like Kaapo Kakko, although when I do the draft simulator Buffalo gets the 1st pick twice as much as they do the second pick.

It is all quite the pickle.

Phil looks pretty stressed. At least I never noticed his eyes look so messed.

I wonder how much of KO's and Pommensteon's comments were for the goalies?

Rob Ray is putting this game on Ullmark.

I think we should approach the common council with this idea.

Is the draw now to see if they can win a game? They're like an existentialist hockey team: meant to suffer because suffering is all that there is, except when there isn't suffering and they revel in the meaninglessness of it all.

I think the win streak told us that, yes, the fan base would appreciate that type of system and probably would love it if the team could execute it consistently. I mean, no one can really answer the first part of that question as posed. Personally I love the Nashville style and, you're right, it's terribly exciting to watch. You just need to watch a few games to really see all of the similarities and recognize where Nashville gets it right and Buffalo gets it wrong. Two things come to mind when comparing the teams: 1. Nashville seems to have total and utter buy-in by the players to execute the system. 2. All Nashville players can play the system. In other words, they are competent with that style. Whether the players are naturals at it or are extremely coach-able is up in the air; obviously there is a blend of both, but, to what degree of each I can't say. On the level of patience point, I think that's a rational conclusion based on the circumstances to date. I think if from January on they played closer to .500 hockey then I think the transition to that style would be more forgivable. I think that no matter what they try and do, unless the results are far more immediate we will continue to see an irritable and impatient fan base.

I don't see how his slump or the Sabres' latter season record help either party. My concern now is that, if Skinner signs here, he gets more than he his worth. Dude needed to bring something the last three games - that's what the big money is for.

Wow, nice summary. Maybe, perhaps, there is a chance that Pegagla "gets it", if he's such a Pittsburgh guy.

Most planned firings occur on Fridays.

"I'm not going to question my teammates' effort..." Conner Sheary. My dear Conner, that is the problem.