nfreeman

You must be overlooking Matt "Ovechkin" Moulson!

Well, after 6-7 games, Nashville is 2-4 and the Habs are 6-0-1. Coincidence?

Beat me to it. My dog is 100% housetrained and never has an accident -- except when he eats the wrong thing and vomits. In those situations -- one of which occurred on Sunday when I was trying to watch the Bills game -- he has a strong preference for the carpet. (OTOH, cleaning up his vomit was better than watching the 2nd half of that game, so there we are.)

I am interested to see how they react to the Philly stomach punch. Hopefully they will exhibit more mental toughness than they did after the Eichel injury. We know how the Roy/Vanek/Pommer teams would have reacted. Let's see how the ROR/Reino/Risto team does. I am cautiously optimistic that they will come out like they did in the 1st 2 periods vs Philly -- and this time they will close out the W, which will give them some confidence and help right the ship.

Serious question: how many goals would Moulson have to score in order for us to to live with, say, 6 triumphant posts from pi per day? I think I'm in at 28 goals.

I'll say it again: you reap what you sow. These are the fruits of the tank -- losing games in the way that only a "loser team" loses games. The team was supposed to lose, lost a million games and in so doing became a bunch of losers who do not know how to win and, even worse, expect to lose. There's going to be a lot more of this crapola until it gets better.

I was thinking the same thing myself -- and Zemgus looked pretty good IMHO against Vancouver. Ennis, although improving, is still a ways away from being the consistent threat he used to be. Still, it's a line with intriguing possibilities.

This is somewhat counter-intuitive but definitely an interesting point. It would be freaking huge if Moulson could contribute some regular scoring.

Amen brother!

I hope so. That was a really dirty and dangerous hit. If that isn't a suspendable hit, I don't know what is. Well, presumably, if this were to become a negotiated CBA point, the cap accounting would be part of that negotiation and the NFL would come up with an accounting treatment that they liked.

If you grab the butt of a woman, for the first time, and it turns out she's there with a tough dude, is he entitled to beat you to a bloody pulp? If yes, why should you get away with it in one instance but not the other? If not, then how can there be a rule against butt grabbing if there is no consequence for breaking it?

You have got to be kidding me.

But most people (including me and many others here who have criticized Dareus) don't think the act of smoking dope is immoral -- our issue is with the fact that he knew he'd be hurting his team if he smoked dope and did it anyway. That's why Dareus wasn't innocent. If the suspension risk is gone, the problem is gone. That's why I was questioning (perhaps inarticulately) qwk's post.

But if there's no punishment, does it matter whether or not he's innocent?

You don't need to sign a legal form, but you do need to keep your hands to yourself unless and until it becomes clear that you have been invited to do otherwise.

Well, I agree that it's unrealistic, but not that it's unfair. As it currently stands, the Bills are completely hosed regarding that $32MM -- and it will be even worse the next time Dareus gets caught (I think the next drug suspension is a full season). How is that fair? As for forfeiting part of future salary/bonus -- that would work economically but I think in practice it would result in the player in question having a pretty poor attitude at work, which the teams would like to avoid. I wouldn't be surprised if pot suspensions and bonus givebacks were both part of the next CBA negotiation.

BTW: If I'm reading this: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/marcell-dareus-7718/correctly, the Bills have paid Dareus a cool $32MM in bonuses -- and I don't think he lost a dime of that for his suspension. It probably won't happen, but I'd like to see the next CBA provide for all bonuses to be escrowed and paid at the end of a contract (or when a team cuts or trades a player), with proportional reductions, plus penalties, for suspensions, showing up out of shape, etc.

You're really going to keep going with this, aren't you? At first I thought you were joking.

This is getting a bit overwrought, IMHO. DDB is an experienced and accomplished coach. Reino is a very young player with a ton of potential, but he's far from an established star. He's also not a particularly good skater. And, he's a guy who the team is relying on to produce offense -- but the team has scored 4 goals in their 3 losses. I don't think DDB wanting Reino to move his feet and play faster is a-tall a crazy thing for DDB to say.

Well, how about this, then: Miami is 3-4, the Bills are 4-3, Miami has a better win (Pittsburgh) than the Bills do and Miami beat the Bills convincingly. With that factual background, I don't see how you can say the the Bills should've beaten Miami.

I just don't agree with the "they should have beaten XYZ team" concept. The Bills were soundly outplayed by the Jets and the Dolphins, and deserved both losses. And the Bills have been lousy for a generation, and beat a few crappy teams this year in games that were close in the 4th quarter. They aren't a good enough team to think that any game is a gimme. They sure could've used the fat guy they gave $100MM to last year, innit?

So does this mean Moulson is up with ROR and Okposo?

If you're tired about hearing about the dearth of due process in these cases, the solution is not to shout down the other side -- it's to help improve a terrible situation -- which you can do, at least, by not pretending that the problem doesn't exist. As to whether the problem exists, and its scope -- what is your response to the numerous false accusation incidents that have received national attention in recent years? (Auburn, Columbia, UVA, Findlay, etc.). In those cases there was nothing remotely resembling due process. Leaving aside the question of whether your "not having any reason to believe" other colleges handle these matters differently from UB has any kind of analytical significance (and, BTW, the new "Title IX Coordinator" -- there's a compelling use of our tax dollars -- recently declared that the reason that sexual assault data at Albany didn't come close to supporting her views on the prevalence thereof was because students were under-reporting assaults), even the process you describe at UB, which you seem to feel represents good due process, is deeply flawed. Not having the right to cross-examine the accuser or to be represented by counsel at the hearing, or to introduce evidence relating to a prior sexual history between the accuser and the accused or a history of other similar accusations, are simply insurmountable problems that result in a lack of due process. The evidentiary standard is also a critical issue -- and I would bet that UB utilizes the president's favored "preponderance" standard, which is really no standard a-tall.

Yikes. Sorry about this 11. As for whether it's relevant to the Kane situations: IMHO it is, for the exact reason someone said upthread: false accusations happen quite often, whether it's part of a shakedown, because some foolish person wants to be an SJW, or otherwise. Rape is a terrible crime, and lesser sexual assault is absolutely not OK either -- but the unfortunate occurrence of those offenses throughout history does not justify a presumption of guilt whenever a woman accuses a man of something. It's also with noting that if 11 were a college student and this happened, he'd be facing a high risk of significant disciplinary action, with no ability to cross-examine the complainant, call witnesses, be represented by counsel, etc.

Is that Halloween, or just Tuesday?