...

I thought last night's game was interesting relative to what you're saying here. Especially the third. It looked like they had either started to play "the system" correctly (assuming what I saw was the system), or the zone exit and entry strategies have been tweaked. I especially noticed things like the younger guys, on entries, not attempting to dump it deep, but rather bank it off the boards to themselves while trying to go around the defender.

Good post. Admittedly, it is easy to forget that the changes downtown are relatively new and that most of the population up north more than likely have impressions of our area based on visits 10 or more years ago.

Judge Advocate General or Just Another Guy? Whatevahs, I think McGinn and Foligno are functionally identical but Foligno brings the heavy, is younger, and doesn't have a back injury hanging over him. If GMTM sees the need for that kind of player, but only one, Foligno is likely to stay. He has been having a good season for the role he's supposed to play. McGinn is also more likely to bring the larger return.

A review of the the thread indicates we missed this: https://streamable.com/mg1f?t=35.9

Nice come back win. Some thoughts: Fitting that Gionta scored the insurance empty-netter. I think it was the second goal against ROR was after the puck with his stick and not the man and body ala our conversation in another thread. Conversely, I saw Jack Jack make two hits. I still like this new Foligno guy. DDB has been good for this Foligno. Speaking of Disco Dan, what happened in the third, there? I hadn't seen that game plan before this season. I also would like to note that I'm kind of digging the zone exit and neutral zone strategies. Not bad, Disco Dan. Lehner is...interesting. He may just wind up being not only a good goalie, but a third D man. What's that really good goalie from the Devils? Yeah, I mean him. If Lehner stays healthy and continues to progress, Murray could right well be hitting genius level.

I want you kids to keep it down in here. I have band practice at 7, and will have to watch the replay afterwards. So no yelling or frowning or any funny business, just keep to yourselves, you hear me?

It gets a bad rap but it's not deserved IMHO. Especially on a system that can handle it at full speed. But, I think the main thing is that I bought it new...what, 6-7 years ago. I want to finish it.

Well, now all defenders have to do against McDavid are get out the big magnets.

You're wrong. Or, you wong.

Would you believe I'm still plugging away at GTA IV? Of course, it took me three years to complete Skyrim. I'm a PC gamer, though, with a pretty awesome surround setup (3-screens with ATI Eyfinity in case you want to know), so I get to crank up all settings in GTA IV which makes it extra fun. I'm also working my way through Wolfenstein the New Order which has a surprisingly decent story-line (for what it is) and better-than-expected characters. The sounds, though, are where it really stands out. Nothing especially mind-blowing but just a well-done sound environment and design.

I don't know what a "jizz rag" refers to...and it's probably best you don't explain it. Wait, no, it is definitely best. Wouldn't a goat head equivalent to a maple leaf be a tree branch? Or a stump? Bark?

THIS, I think, is relatively accurate. The post I quoted though, said "That's the biggest issue I have with the direction this conversation has gone - the concept of not wanting other fans here seems over the top." The latter is inaccurate.

I need to leave this thread. But it's so...it calls to me. In a bad way. I think the Sabres are okay to "welcome" Leafs fans, per se, per se. I do not think the Sabres' ought to market to Leafs fans as Leafs fans.

And maybe throw a goat in there somewhere.

Wow. Talk about not having the facts straight before speculating or theorizing...

It has a Charles M.Schulz quality to it.

You are completely missing the point. Totally. No one is saying the other teams' fans are not wanted. The only people saying that are those trying to figure out a way of opposing the OP.

It was the "but, I mean..." that set me off. Dang. It's really not a fair response to you in context, but I really like the post. If I leave it there, would you just ignore it? Maybe consider yourself the boogeyman for that moment?

You didn't stop when it was appropriate to stop making that point. You added your editorial which changed everything about your point. But you're right. I was on a roll, though.

I don't get what is wrong with what you bolded. You might not appreciate the thinking behind it, but all of that is not worth anyone getting their panties bunched up in a wad. And I'm not saying you did, specifically, but, of course, others did. So, perhaps the speculation that the Sabres directly generated the article is wrong. So what, unless you're really motivated to find out for sure, most people will not call the Sabres to verify that. They will only do so to make a very distinct point. Most people speculate and theorize in similar such conversations. Do you disagree that the Sabres are actively marketing to other teams' fans to come in and fill the building? Did Gilbert verify that they are NOT actively doing that (not in just this instance)? Did you make that call? You haven't admitted as much. Let's say you disagree, as you seem to imply. Is it CRAZY and STUPID to think that they may be doing that kind of marketing? If yes, why? Why is it crazy to think that? Suppose you allow that the Sabres are marketing to opposing teams' fans. You don't think that having those fans in the Sabres building is a bad thing. Good for you. Why is it SILLY for someone to think it is? Do you have data to back up that thinking? Is there consensus that the data is sound? Generally, you are implying with the way your response reads that the entire concept behind the thought is ridiculous...no, not ridiculous, the ellipsis suggest to me you think the thought is crazy, loony, irrational. You are not at all allowing the possibility that there might be some truth in there worth discussing. You are dismissing the thought completely, implying it is less than meritless. Then why not leave the thread instead of attacking the person with the so-called crackpot theory. That was your choice. Your "crackpot theory" is someone else's "interesting thought". You are not asking people to conform to your thinking, you are requiring them to. And you throw tantrums when they don't. See: this thread.

Actually, someone was threatened with "limited" posting abilities, whatever it was exactly and whatever that means, exactly. And, prior to that, the OP's thoughts were mixed up with the concept of the OP. If spndchz had made the OP, saying she was uncomfortable with the Sabres seemingly inviting the enemy into the building, would we be in this exact spot, now? Would liger gone ballistic? I submit not. And then there was discussion about "posting lies" and how it's all just speculation. Ridiculous. It was a theory, and started an interesting discussion topic. The problem wasn't the content of the OP, the problem in this thread was how certain people responded. The problem is that some people simply can't get over what they think the OP, in this case, intends each time he posts. One could simply, and rationally, disagree. But, instead, several attacked the OP personally, instead of taking apart his theory. So, IMHO, the thought behind the OP really isn't an issue. That can be discussed. The issue is the way certain people responded, and instead of taking responsibility for their responses, they blamed the OP for...being the OP. And then the OP was threatened to change his behavior, and not post certain types of otherwise innocuous topics, elsewise they will be punished for being rationally unique. I see it like d4rk. It's like a mindset has set in to white-wash the content of the board and neutralize the personalities and conversations that make this board stand out in the first place. It's like fancy-stats have made their way into conversation - if you can't back up your statements with some acceptable data, then your statements are not welcome. That's boring.

He'll become an action movie star.

Is there a hockey game soon? I think we need one. Gonna be a long summah.

Again, the Sabres must market to Southern Ontario, and it's rational and reasonable to do so. Of course no one is saying the opposing teams' fans should NOT be in our barn. It does make for an energetic environment here, and we would not want Sabres fans to be dis-allowed at away games. The latter two points are so obvious, it's pretty ridiculous I feel the need to point that out at all. The issue is the Sabres INVITING the opposing teams' fans here. It's bush-league. "Oh, well, we like Toronto fans here because, honestly, our fans don't fill the seats even though we sell out our season tickets every year." "Come on down, Leafs fans, and fill the First Niagara Center, our team isn't good (yet, we hope), and yours ain't either, but it's a lot cheaper for you to come here and we have decent food and donuts." "You Southern Ontario hockey fans, come down and watch your favorite Canadian team when they visit the Sabres....we don't mind it when the cheers for Canadian teams are louder than for the Sabres when the Sabres are scored against at home. No problem. We'll just shut up and take it because we need the money...no, no don't add that, that's not part of the copy."

You have to be kidding me. Warned over this? I think someone has been a mod too long.