...

Surely there's a Ryan O'Reilly connection that can be exploited in this thread for that very purpose.

This all might correlate with the idea that the Sabres' internal stats, metrics, and analyses are nowhere in the same neighborhood as the rest of the world-at-large.

Brian Kozial was calling out the Pegulas in the postgame in Florida. He was saying they wasted an opportunity to talk to the fans after the game. I'm willing to bet the JBott PC was due in large part to that.

I think it already has evolved beyond it. My position with Cullen's post is that it combines goonery with grit and sandpaper equally. The latter two elements are essential to the game - "moving beyond" those elements is impossible without altering the game's fundamental nature. Goonery technically doesn't need to occur, but it will happen from time to time because it's people playing a physical and inherently violent game. No one wants to see a bunch of goons doing what goons do, but you have to accept it will happen and unless it's completely legislated out of the game, coaches will still keep that tool in their tool kit.

Paul Hamilton was saying yesterday on Schooop and Bulldog that he thought JBott handled the interview that same as he handled all of them. I completely disagree, I think from the get-go he sounds way more tense and erratic-speaking than he normally does.

I think a lot of the response to JBott is in the Fire Housley thread. Where has Jame gone? That interview was purpose-made for him.

Goonery, grit, the-physical-game all evolved into the sport for a reason. I think Cullen's argument is fine, but what is he saying about the NHL now? It's as equally diluted now as it was then, perhaps even more so. Anyway, in a battle, or "battle", you don't gain the upper hand by reading poems to your opponent, or tickling them, you gain the upper hand by exerting force when the means to execute a movement-only strategy are limited.

When I saw that, and it was clear he's taking the tough love approach, my initial instinct was that I'm not turned-off by that approach in theory. The ramifications of such an approach will fill this board for the next year, easily. It's an extension of Darcy's "suffering".

Jason Botterill on Jeff Skinner's contract status: "Both his group and ours have obviously continued our dialogue. We haven’t done play-by-play in the media just because that’s the way we wanted to go about things. Both sides continue to work to try to find a resolution." "Try(ing) to find a resolution" does not sound encouraging.

It's the tough love approach.

I know.

67 pages of talking in circles.

Have we not had veterans on the roster over the past decade?

The third period collapse - who is responsible for that? People were in the GDT last night giving Phil praise for what must have been a great speech inbetween the 1st and 2nd periods because they looked good in the second, not dominate, but good. Last night it was my impression Phil was one question away from blowing a gasket during the post game. The look on his face is not unlike the one we've seen on Bylsma, Nolan, Rolston and Ruff at this point in seasons past. They all seem to be experiencing the same thing. I will say, of all of those coaches, Phil has the best system by a long shot. These players, though, they've "quit" on each one of these coaches. Each one has had to deal with effort issues and a lack of focus, mental processing errors. There is no new story here. My wife and I got a puppy together when we first married. That puppy turned into the perfect dog - I could walk her among people without a leash with 100% trust that she would listen. We lived near a park and she would run and play as hard as any dog but you could stop her on a dime with a command. Awesome dog. Got her from an amateur breeder. So, we decided to get a second dog when the first one started getting on in years to keep her company. This puppy was a rescue from the SPCA (he was abused at 1 month). He has behavior issues that we hoped training and being around awesome dog would fix. Well, dog 2 is a great person dog, but a horrible walker and I don't trust him off leash. I loved walking awesome dog, but dog 2 has become a walker's challenge. Awesome dog dies. We get another dog eventually as a companion to dog 2. Not an abuse rescue, but a puppy from the SPCA none-the-less. Long story short: she has adopted the exact behaviors dog 2 has on walks but has put her own spin on them. Now, walking my dogs is a chore because I always need to concern myself with them rather than be able to trust them to "do the right thing" on our walks. My conclusion is that both will have to pass on before we get another dog because otherwise each dog will pass unwanted behaviors down the chain. This is how I see the Sabres at this point. The chain was tainted somewhere. Somewhere something has crept into the entire Sabres culture and spoiled it in some manner. But I don't think it's the coach this time. They need someone to identify behaviors and thoughts that lead to these collapses, lead to dropping success once they pick it up. Can that be a coach, too? Maybe, but what coach can really teach hockey, personal development, and actually run a successful system, manage players in-game, and have the wisdom to make calls on the fly when necessary? And accomplish all of this while still motivating the team and not offending them or turning them off? That there would be one accomplished person.

Phil was pretty terse on that last question. We may have been one question away from getting the emotion everybody is looking for.

I think the odds are good.

As much as I sorely wish this team can move forward, these words of yours reverberate within me.

Oh look a goal!

I gots more GIFs if you wants 'em.