LTS

Or it's something you say because you want another GM to believe that....

And you'll still get that mentality because despite the rule on review, media and people will have 15 camera angles showing things at 120fps with image optimization so they can prove the official made the wrong call. The post-game (during game even) media circus and social media frenzy will be worse than starved sharks at a chum bucket (I said CHUM).

I understand how you are concerned about the growth and use of the replay. You're fear is that it will continue to be used more and more and the line that is drawn on "how far back do we go" will continue to creep. It could happen right? It could be seen that an interference call in the D zone leads to a breakaway that results in a goal. Is that reviewable? This has always been the case with any video review. They set a standard and then when a fluke play occurs and everyone can examine it from a multitude of camera angles people look and say, "There's no reason this can't be reviewed." They opened the door when the instituted review. We know they don't even always get that right (helloooo goaltender interference). Truthfully, I would not want them to review this. It's a missed call, that is egregious enough that it should not be a missed call. I'm fine with the refs being held out of future series just in case there was some level of intentional non-call. It eliminates their input into the future games (just in case, for example, a ref was betting on the game). I also see why people would argue for the review. It's obvious and it directly (within seconds) leads to a goal. When I coach kids, my advice to them is to never put themselves in a spot where an official can make a mistake and ruin your day. They are people and they make mistakes, just as we all do. I'm torn when it comes to review. I suppose if 1999 never happened I might be fully in favor of no reviews. Not that the review system worked then either. Perhaps if there had been no review process we'd have gotten over it sooner, who knows.

I would have loved to have been in whatever bar he walked into and started chatting hockey with him. I hope those who he chatted up have now realized who they were talking to.

I agree with this entirely. Casey has creativity, he has drive and a desire to do things on the ice. Unfortunately his body didn't always work at the same speed as his brain. Add to that the eventually drop in performance as the season goes on and the drop of the entire team and you get what you got. I'm excited about what he will do. Even as early as next year. I think he's fine. You could want more, but with the way the team finished out last year, was anyone really going to get "more".

You are. The first is, I don't think he's being deified. The second is, he did have the funny costume. He's not any more special than anyone else, no one is. We all have our own value to the world. However, he IS Pancho Billa and that that brand was built. His character was known by many people and as such, the death of his character is also known by many. That said, I'm sure if you bring up <insert cancer patient who died> people will still feel sympathy for the loss of life. The reach of their life might not be as great, and as such the response might be less, but it doesn't make their death any less relevant to those who had a relationship with that person.

Let's be honest here. The Bills organization had to become aware of his situation somehow. Once they did, he had to agree to do all of this. In the realm of culpability, he has it all. I'm not faulting him for that either. As for how people feel about him, that's the typical celebrity syndrome. You see a person on TV, in their character, and you want to relate to them. You feel like you know them and then you begin to feel like they owe you something. The counter point to Buffalo congratulating itself is that you could live in a town where something like this is ignored. Everyone is too wrapped up in themselves to care about something like this. Which is better? I suppose it depends on who you are. I'm not that concerned about it. Thanks though! ? Again, he allows the "exploitation". He recorded the BN video that was posted. He agrees to all of this. The truly cynical would insinuate that he (or his family) will receive from kind of monetary benefit from the organization. Even if that were the case I see nothing wrong with someone using their situation to help improve someone else's situation (even if it is their own family)... and there's a reason for it.. And this is the reason... because it stimulates a conversation. It helps people cope with the situation that might be in their lives at that very moment. Perhaps without these videos people don't see that this is one way of approaching things and they ultimately take a much darker course through it. Perhaps this offers a way of looking at things that helps people get through it. I'm glad it helped. And as always, all the best on getting through this NB. -------------------------- The bottom line? You can choose to ignore it all if you don't like it. If it resonates with you, then it's doing what it should, for you. I can't see a downside to the whole situation. But people want to find a way to create one. It's not just this situation, it seems it's every situation. No one here would trade positions with him, I am pretty certain of that, so why find fault with how he chose to get through it?

From this article This triggered a thought inside my head. Twice in my life I have had the fortune to work underneath (not directly, either) a leader who reminds me of this quote. Even though they might be someone you interact with once every few weeks it felt like you interacted with them every day. They remember everything that you tell them. They ask about things in your life and prove it's not just passing conversation when they recall that information and then follow up on it in later conversations (weeks later, months later). They do this with everyone they interact with. Why is this important? Because those two leaders were people that everyone wanted to work for. Their people wanted that leader to succeed and the feeling was reciprocated. I had many conversations where I was given advice on how to improve my approach to things and it wasn't until a few days later you realized that you had been given the advice. The way it was delivered just bypassed every rejection mechanism and you adopted that improvement without thinking about it. In continuing my above story, the two leaders I referred to always seemed to know about everything. They weren't going to win the nobel prize (well, okay, one might have had a chance) but they were never ignorant of a subject. They were informed and could speak on seemingly everything at a colleague type level. Granted they were also utterly brilliant in their specific field, but seemingly could understand anything. While we have no experience with Krueger yet, the big difference from what I am reading is that Krueger appears to be more intellectual than Nolan when it comes to the game. I'm not trying to sleight Nolan here, but he was largely known for getting a lot out of his players without having a real hockey sense. He was motivational but not really strategic. It seems that Krueger has a better head for strategy and perhaps understands the game and the mechanics of it at a higher level. In this way he can relate to players who think the game that way and in ways perhaps Nolan could not. We shall see. As for Keefe, I think it's premature to assume they did not inquire about him. It may also be seen that he really wants to take over Toronto. Finally, the stuff regarding his past, no matter how we feel about it, may be enough to red flag him with the organization. Right or wrong, it may be that they don't want to risk something bigger coming to light once he's a head coach. I'm not saying that's the case, of course I have no idea. I am merely stating that I don't think there's enough evidence to pass judgment on what did or did not happen with regards to Keefe. ---------------------- I have no idea how this hire will turn out. However, given what I've seen of this roster and its star players it seems clear that getting them to play together has to be a top priority and the past few coaches have not been able to do that. The team has the appearance of being together but its play on the ice suggests otherwise. I can only hope this is a step in the right direction.

Corrupted in less than a page... sad. I'm not a Bills fan any longer. I'm not even a football fan. The dude certainly put his heart and passion into the team and the sport. He's too damn young (everyone is, every time). We should all be so lucky to find something we can be that passionate about in life. When I see this story (and have seen the past updates) I simply look at it as a team and a fan coming together when the fan needed it more than ever. It shouldn't be hard to find the good in that.

I love how much debate there is over a guy who might not even be interviewed or offered a spot as a coach. People on here almost ready to drop the gloves. Y'all are nuts.

The coloring sounds accurate and mockingbirds are pretty nasty too.

Most likely Blue Jays.. they are highly aggressive around a nesting area. They'll buzz anything and everything. Growing up we had a nest in the pine tree in the neighbors yard and we had to run to get into the car before they hit us.

Everything old is old still.

Just read it. Thanks for the summary too. It helps. I had to read about "FEE" as I have no background on the group providing the report. Seems like good news overall. The metrics on unemployment have certainly looked good without a doubt. Perhaps I have to read again because I don't recall them discussing how prices for goods have been rising as well though. Earning more money because you have to spend more money isn't really all that great of an improvement. However, it's still better than not earning more and still having to spend more. ?

I have not read this, but can you provide some summary or position on why you posted it? (granted the title has an obvious statement in it). I'm heading out the door, but I will look at it later. It just helps if there is more than a link.

Better to despise them all.

I refuse to submit to the pessimism. I'm not really an optimist either but I just don't want to be negative. There's enough of it out there. I am hopeful the Sabres can turn things around. Mostly hopeful for those who have a hard time remaining positive in times like these. For those who allow the team to get them down and seemingly ruin their day, week, month, year, etc. I'm going to Sweden to watch this team next year without knowing anything of what will be done between now and then. I'm fine with that decision.

You do that one more time and Josie is going to need a new person in her life... ?

Sounds like a perfectly good plan to me.

The Sabres might not do better. But I wouldn't have wanted any of those guys as the HC of this team. Assistants is another story.

Well... if you watched the Spider-Man Trailer #2 today you got some pretty big clues to where things are going.

FWIW - I have no idea what you are referring to as I have never seen an episode of the series and pay no attention to it. But I'll go with it I suppose.

More people talk about Game of Thrones than presidential elections and you are surprised about this? You've much to learn. ?

Your response is really over the top and incredibly presumptive. Bringing fire to a subject matter that is prone to exploding isn't always the best choice. I will admittedly say that I rolled my eyes at that moment in the movie. The reason? It was simply too contrived. In that way I feel that it undermines the message it is supposed to send. The message they had been building through a few movies up to that point. If they had simply let the scene come together organically without stopping to call it out and almost make it completely separate it would have been that much more powerful. Instead, it leads to these kinds of discussions where people mock the scene because it feels out of place with the flow of the battle. It's almost like someone thought, "we better throw in a scene to placate the people who think women superheroes are important". In that way, it cheapens the overall message. They could have accomplished more by creating longer engagement between Thanos and Captain Marvel and Scarlet Witch. They could have made some of the "bigger" battles involving females. They could have done all that and sent a far more powerful message than just creating a single scene that would be so obvious that it would not need to called out and then they went ahead and called it out anyway. I really enjoyed Captain Marvel, and Scarlet Witch has long been one of my favorite heroes (pre-movies). In fact, I want more from her, because she's seriously kick ass. That said, let me ask you about the statement I bolded, and it's just something to consider. In giving praise the your friend's fiance do you not also provide justification for the male mindset? She related to Captain Marvel, so suddenly she cared. She did not care about the male superheroes. In that way, she's saying that unless they are like me, I'm less likely to care about them. Males relating to male superheroes and not caring about female superheroes would be the equivalent. I understand that your response may be "well, there are so many more male superheroes." That's a true statement, and in that way there is an inequality. However, that blame can only be put on those who create the superheroes and not those who choose to like one superhero over another, correct? Note: This is different than people who say a female can't be a superhero. I feel I need to make that point abundantly clear. That sentimentality is beyond absurd. It's an interesting, fairly well thought out, theory. If that were to hold it would speak to incredible planning on the part of the Marvel Studios. For those who wanted more from some characters, I still maintain that those with reduced story points are the ones who will carry MCU Phase 4. There will be a Dr. Strange 2, there's already Spider-Man (which officially ends MCU Phase 3 and transitions to 4). There will be Guardians 3 (Asguardians? Either way). There's undoubtedly more Captain Marvel (she should be one of the main characters from here on out). The questions I have will be, how much more Black Panther will there be? Will they move the Earth bound characters to simply fill the "TV series" role on the Disney+ streaming service?