Drunkard

Exactly. I fully support the tank because we need a couple of truly great players to avoid this endless cycle of mediocrity but they can still be entertaining and bad at the same time. This team has little talent, no grit, and no moxie. The mid to late 90's Sabres could beat you up even when they couldn't beat you and there were always tough to play against. Even if you remove the world class goaltender in Hasek I doubt many people looked forward to actually playing the Sabres and facing guys like Ray, May, Barnaby, etc. and even guys like Peca who may not have dropped the gloves as much but were still a pain in the ass to play against. Opponents must see the current Sabres as pad your stats night. Nobody strikes fear in the opposing team or is even that much of a pain in the ass to play against. McCormick and Deslauriers will drop the gloves from time to time and Girgensons never stops but that's about it. Hopefully Kaleta comes back and is the same lovable heel opponents love to hate but we need some more guys to join in and get with the program, especially if they aren't going to chip in with any scoring/talent (Foligno, Stafford, Stewart). If they won't we need to pick up another Adam Mair type who can rattle the other team's cage without looking completely lost on the ice.

If we're looking for young stud prospects or promising young vets we'd also have to take a heck of a lot of garbage coming back in return for those 2 as that would be almost $10 million in combined cap hit going out the door. Not many teams (if any) could add that to their rosters.

Regehr, Ehrhoff, Leino, and who was #4?

No man's land assuming our 2015 first is McDavid or Eichel. Bottom 5 is we miss out on both.

I feel for the season ticket holders because I can't imagine dropping that much coin to watch this train wreck. This is the first year I haven't gotten Center Ice since I signed up for Directv like 8 years ago. Now I just stream the games on an illegal feed and still find myself reading this board or surfing the web rather than fully paying attention to the game. That being said you probably should've dropped your season tickets back when Darcy first brought up the idea of suffering. I know there's a waiting list and all but it's been a bad season (maybe 2 if you count the lockout shortened one) already, and there will probably be one or two more before this team is remotely competitive. I would think you'd move back up the list pretty quickly, and even if it takes a few years the amount of money you would have saved would afford you to be able to pick up plenty of marked up tickets on stubhub once the team is more competitive and you'd still come out ahead financially.

You need to throw an acrost in there somewhere.

They should try that at AA meetings in WNY. It would probably lead to higher sobriety rates than that whole higher power stuff.

Purely speculation on my part but it seems like he's getting the Grigorenko treatment. Sit in the press box and waste away for too long, playing limited minutes with talentless people when is he allowed to play and burn up a year of his rights for no reason while stunting his development. It must be the Buffalo way with Russian players.

In the pilot, Morgan (the black guy with the kid who helped Rick) said that his wife got bit and then got a fever that killed her after a few days. I imagine if Bob did get bit in that basement he'll start showing signs in the next episode. *Edit* I just streamed that part of the pilot online and he doesn't specify how long it took his wife to die. The few days thing was a pure rectal extraction on my part.

From what I remember bites don't matter. Everyone is already infected and everyone turns when they die unless the brain is destroyed. Getting bit gives you a fever that causes you to die but if you've never been in contact with a zombie and die from hanging yourself or any other way that doesn't destroy your brain you still turn.

Darwin strikes again! That video is awesome, nfreeman.

Don't let him fool you though, qwk, he's just racking up all those sweet assists/points because he's in a contract year. And nobody on the roster who even averages 3 shots a game.

On the Sabres, being a playmaker is akin to being more prone to look for the pass rather than take the shot. Usually it results in a bad pass leading to a turnover though.

We are definitely lacking in talent and I definitely agree that we also just flat out lack finishers. Most of the talent we do have tends to fall more into the playmaker category rather than a sniper/shooter/finisher (pause for either the laugh or feeling of despair done by anyone that looks at our roster and realizes that most of them can't shoot or pass). Off the top of my head the only guys I can think of that are more prone to shoot than pass are Moulson, Stafford, Foligno, and Stewart.

I think calling icings during a penalty kill is a bad idea. While it may lead to more goals being scored I think it's also going to lead to a ton more play stoppages. One of the best things about hockey (besides the fights and the hits) is that the flow of the game is so fast paced. Adding in more and more potential play stoppages is just going to lead to longer games and more commercials. If you've got a 1 goal game with a penalty taken in the last few minutes I venture to guess that games like that will start to drag out the way football and basketball games do now where the final minute can take half an hour or at least it feels that way.

I've only got the free Center Ice preview for 3 more days but I'm not sure if I'm going to watch or not. I'm fully on board with the tank but it's tough to get motivated to watch a slaughter of my favorite team. All I know is we better damn well get one of the big 2 and whoever we get better damn well be as good as advertised. I know we have a stacked pipeline and better days are ahead and all that but I desperately want to see a stud player on this roster within the next couple of seasons.

It's all good, man. I imagine we agree on many more things than we probably realize even if we probably vote far differently. Thank you for your service and I definitely enjoy the discussion.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I remember some conservatives on tv and in Congress talking about ballooning deficits and the need to cut spending, mainly to make some nice talking points on tv, but when push came to shove it was just empty words and they never stood in the way of Bush's overspending the way they did/do with Obama and they certainly never made their top priority to block all legislation the way Republican leaders have openly admitted to doing with Obama. That was the crux of my point, not whether you and your one vote railed about Bush's spending or corrupt activities. Secondly, I'll state again that overall, I like Ron Paul but his earmarks and his district pet projects did add to deficit spending. It's not always a case of this is a $100 billion dollar farm bill (made up example) and that legislation has a dollar amount set in stone and every cent we don't earmark becomes a blank check to the President. Many times it was a case of a $100 billion Bill ballooning into a larger Bill after Congressmen W, X, Y, and Z got their sticky fingers on it so they could go back to their home districts in Texas, Nebraska, or California and brag to their constituents about the new library they got funding for or whatever project. Ron Paul railed against it but made sure to bring home the bacon to help his own re-election efforts. My point about the open primaries was that you made a statement to the other poster that by registering as an R or D that he has already aligned himself with one side and that therefore he can't be or isn't independent. I just pointed out an example where in many states registering as an independent eliminates your ability to vote in primary elections which can have a bigger impact than voting in the general election thanks to gerrymandering. So while what you are registered as definitely matters (especially in closed primary states) it doesn't mean you march lockstep with whichever party you signed up for. I'm a registered Republican and I can't honestly remember the last time I voted for a Republican. Their social agenda is way too Old Testament for my liking and I've come to the conclusion that I'm never going to be rich so there's not much point in voting to help the rich get richer off the backs of the poor. Finally, you are right that you didn't specifically state "the definition of insanity is blah blah blah" but just bringing the statement up perpetuates it's usage by others and it's just wrong, although it's certainly not your fault. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter but it's a statement that usually bugs me so I brought it up. I wasn't trying to twist your words or score debate points with it or anything like that. I just enjoy the open conversation of opposing view points.

I definitely agree with this. Gerrymandering has ruined the political system as much as lobbying money or any other factor. The sad fact of the matter is that most members or the House are more worried about in their own parties primary election than losing to the guy with the opposite letter. Willingness to compromise is now attacked as weakness or lack of resolve and it just leads to the extremes of the spectrum getting elected. They should redraw the districts based off pure geography and population without looking into the demographics of certain neighborhoods. Unfortunately both sides seem to be happy about the current arrangement.

Wow, that is a ton of hyperbole. The system may be broken but it's the same broken system we've had for decades. The funny thing is that the alarmists about dying democracy conveniently didn't voice their concerns much until Obama took office. The few who did voice their concern did so in a tepid manner at best, as opposed to holding rallies and vowing to block any and all legislation supported by the White House. As for choosing a party, in many states independents are not allowed to vote in the major primaries, I believe only the states with open primaries allow that. As for Ron Paul, I like him quite a bit but to prop him up as some sort of beacon of integrity is kind of disingenuous because he's played some of the shady political games that all other politicians play. I remember Tim Russert shredding him on an episode of Meet the Press because he would rail against pork spending while earmarking tons of spending in his home district and attaching it to popular bills so he could vote against them while still seeing them pass and then prop himself up as fiscally responsible. A beacon of integrity he is not, although I will admit you probably don't have to hold your nose to vote for him as much as anyone of us probably has to hold our nose while we vote for the average politician who represents our district. Finally, I wish people would stop about the whole definition of insanity line you stated. It is not and has never been the definition of insanity. Just more bloviating for the sake of it.

Try living in the south where you have tons of ignorant hillbillies that love Rush Limbaugh and all things Conservative. The funniest part is hearing them piss and moan about all the "takers" when they themselves get farm subsidies or food stamps and have children on medicaid. I should also say he's got every right to speak his drivel for as long as gun manufacturers and gold dealers are willing to buy advertising spots on his program. Let them live in their bubbles and continue to wonder why they have trouble connecting with voters in national elections. Unfortunately thanks to gerrymandering they'll still win their share of elections but over time it'll change as the old paranoid geezers die off.

Definitely. Forgot to add them to the list. 20 wins should cover it. Not sure how many games we have against each of them but if we have any extras we can spread them out against Philly, Toronto, Ottawa, and Pittsburgh.

I hate the Canes enough that I'm ok with winning this game. Maybe we can sweep the Canes and Bruins and lose to everyone else.

The Beast Ice but it's all whatever. Milwaukee Products tend to run about a dollar cheaper than their Anheuser Busch counterparts (MGD to Budweiser, the Beast to Busch etc.). I became loyal to the Milwaukee beers and stuck with them. I've even got a tattoo of a beer mug over my heart that says Milwaukee and I've never even been to Wisconsin, I just love their beer. And I always go with cans even when I'm drinking something that also comes in bottles. Security follows me around enough as it is. I prefer to drink cans at home too though. Bottles weigh down the trash bags more and make me have to take out the garbage more often.

Close except substitute Milwaukee Beers in for St. Louis ones. My favorite is still Milwaukee's Best Ice because it's cheap and strong. Started drinking it in high school and still love it to this day even during the times in my life where money wasn't as much of a worry/focal point. I guess so. I just liked the beers I first got used to and stuck with them. Plus I can't see spending 3 times the price or more on some fancy microbrew just because it was hand crafted by some beer geek in the mountains of whatever charming town USA using the finest imported hops and blah blah. It may be 8 or 10% alcohol by volume but at 3 times the price of my beloved corn water, I've got enough money leftover to support my tobacco habit as well.