LTS

Could you imagine what people on here would do if the Sabres dropped to 4th last year? They apparently did last year when despite the probability being greater that they drop out of the top spot they actually landed it. Oy. No. because probability... --------------------- I don't like that teams can jump so high in the lottery, it does seem to make it fairly stupid. This is what happened a couple of years ago though when Philly and NJ made big jumps. Philly from 13 to 2 and NJ from 5 to 1... There really should be a limit of how many spots a team can move up. I still prefer that the team that finishes last gets the top pick. That system may influence teams who are out of the race to make moves to improve their chances of finishing last, but I'm not sure the lottery has changed that behavior.

There's information in the links above. The four birds we have are a Great Horned Owl, Red-tailed Hawk, Broad-winged Hawk, and a Merlin. They've all suffered damage to wings or eyes. Wings are usually being hit by a car and eyes can be that but our redtail was shot. They are used for education program my wife does as part of the organization.

Is he your #2?

All your hopes flushed away.

All of this. I saw too much of Lehner and Johnson from last year begin to appear in Hutton and Ullmark this year. Same soft spots, over-aggressive pursuit of shooters, etc.

https://www.bbrr.org - Website https://www.facebook.com/BraddockBayRaptorResearch/ - Facebook https://dunkadoo.org/explore/braddock-bay-raptor-research/2019-spring-raptor-watch - live migration updates from our hawk watcher Braddock Bay Raptor Research. The Braddock Bay area upon Lake Ontario in the Town of Greece has one of the highest Spring migration totals in North America.

True. One would have to think that at this point you wait until after tonight to make your decision. Why wouldn't you want to see where your new employer will be drafting? It might not have a huge sway, but if the Kings move to 1 and the Sabres fall to 7 it could create a potential difference. That said, as I think about it... aren't all the GM's in Toronto tonight anyway and they are probably tied up with this whole process. Guess he'll be in town to chat with the GMs anyway. ?

And people wonder why we're quickly growing into a surveillance society... (yes, still growing... it can get worse). Ridiculous. But, last year we had a a few months of significant car thefts and other criminal mischief in the area (very rare). During that I installed a custom security solution to deal with any potential issues that make their way onto my property. We house non-releasable birds of prey on the property and if something were to happen, I'd like to at least have some video evidence along with potential warnings that someone is where they should not be.

Well, he's going to Buffalo anyway right? So that was to be expected. His kid is playing this weekend right?

My theory would be.. because you have to then bring someone else up who will then not be developed. So, damned if you do, damned if you don't. So, you may choose to keep up the players who are more likely to develop in the NHL because of their past experience than some others that might need the AHL to develop a better feel for the NA rink and game style. You could look at Nylander, but he could just as easily have been targeted to help Olofsson and Pilut adjust to the changes. He wasn't so much better that he HAD to be in Buffalo. In the end, you have a lot of players swirling around for the same kind of spots and you have to place them somewhere. Mittlestadt knows the NA game, despite being young. He's not Swedish, so he's not adjusting to new culture. It's a center... which they needed in Buffalo, not as much in Rochester. Thompson has played in the NHL/AHL and is also not Swedish. In the end, you calculate the variables and the facets that need to be developed and you try and create the right environment. It's the right on in Rochester and apparently wasn't quite the right one in Buffalo.

Are you referring to the specific posters here in this rant or are you generalizing about those who support Democrats and Republicans?

There is no coach that makes any team that much greater than the players themselves. People put far too much emphasis on the coach. The coach can allow the players to underachieve, but they won't get the players to overachieve. Players have to do that themselves. As for the role of analytics, I think it's important to note that analytics (related to hockey) are created because of the talent of those on the ice. No player is a 50 goal scorer because of analytics. Analytics tell us what situations a 50 goal scorer should be in to be their best (potentially). As such, the skill of the player supersedes the analytic. The player can see things on the ice that analytics will verify. The same holds true for coaches. People who know hockey, understand hockey, are going to naturally see the things that others only come to see using analytics. In many cases, they will see even more. No analytics, of which I am aware, demonstrate how a defender reads the puck carrier's movements and can instinctively use that to make a great play. No analytics, of which I am aware, demonstrate how great goal scorers are able to consistently change shot angles to fool goaltenders. No analytics, of which I am aware, demonstrate how players floating through defense lanes and subtly tugging sticks, etc. allow for a greater chance of scoring. The analytics will tell you that those players make great things happen on the ice but people who understand the game will know why it happens. This also works in reverse in some situations where analytics can point out the forest from the trees. It can upend a bias that someone has. I'm not dismissing analytics, but I do believe that many who excel at the highest levels process the information in a game at a level not yet modeled by data. All of that aside, unless the players want to make the coach successful, the odds are good the team will continue to be no good.

I mean, Buffalo has only won it once. Edmonton on the other hand.. they're the poster child indicating that even if you have the top picks it doesn't mean you are going to win. Draft lottery or not... they've been terrible for a long time. It almost feels like that playoff appearance two years ago was more of a fluke than the Bills.

I posted in the other thread.. but it belongs here. McLellan is the coach who pulled the 'C' from Joe Thornton. I mean.. that's a bold move. He was an assistant to Babcock as well. If it holds out I think I can live with the idea. Certainly him over AV or Boudreau (absolutely do not want him). Someone floated Tippett but I think he's just holding out for the sweet Seattle job. I could behind Tippett, he seemed to work wonders with the Coyotes and what he was given. I think he checks the boxes when it comes to things Botterill was probably looking for.

I'm not sure what to think of McLellan. He's had success. I don't think you can pin the debacle of Edmonton on him as their GM situation is the biggest joke. Clearly Hitchcock was not able to fix what was wrong in Edmonton either. He had a pretty good run with the Sharks. He had the stones to pull the 'C' from Jumbo Joe.

He said he'd already begun talking to people in his press meeting yesterday. So, you don't like this either? And until it's done, it's not done... just ask Antonio Brown.

I am asking you to provide some supportable evidence of your claims that Democrats are actively importing illegal citizens into this country. That is how discussion works. Rather than provide any information you fall upon the dismissive trying to intimate that I am not willing to admit something. For the record, I am asking you to provide proof which is a far cry from saying that you are wrong. No one made claims of there being a game here. You are being asked to provide proof of your claims. If they are so obvious, there should be plenty of proof to provide. Your counter-question does not have any part of the debate of your initial claim. The discussion of protecting citizens lives is one facet of the discussion on illegal immigration. In order for us to worry about it, the illegal immigrant has to enter the country. There are numerous ways that happens, you have stated that Democrats are actively importing illegal immigrants. Your commentary on taxes? I have no idea why you are going there. It's not germane to the discussion either. It stinks of looking for anything to try and divert attention away from you being asked to provide proof. From where I sit, it seems that you are unable to delineate the differences in what is happening. You are mistakenly attributing the action of importation to the democratic party when you are more upset about the fact that they support policies that make it harder to export illegal immigrants when they are found. So, once again, provide proof of the Democratic party actively IMPORTING illegal immigrants into this country. This is your chance to support your point, it's your chance to not have your statements dismissed.

I fully support this. I despise both teams but of the two I want Boston to have the success.

Yes

He was awesome in the Hunt for Red October. ?

One skill that Jason Botterill lacks is the ability for public speaking. He's terrible at it. It doesn't bother me that he is, but he's never going to come across as a guy who seems competent when in the public forum. I believe he is competent however. The thing with any coaching selection is that even the experienced coaches that are available have all been fired for failure a few times and I'm not sure how many have won a Stanley Cup. It's not just about having an experienced coach, it's about having the right coach for this team. An experienced coach MIGHT have the skills to move this team in the right direction and they MIGHT be extremely successful. It's going to be a crap shoot though. An inexperienced coach with the right skills has just as much chance of being successful. I think the inexperienced coach has to come from a successful organization where they would have had plenty of time to absorb the knowledge and hone the skills on how to run a hockey team. Think of it as hiring the assistants of successful coaches in the NFL. They tried it with Housley, but he clearly still needed to learn more than he had. Perhaps it was a bit too soon for Housley to assume full control. One thing is certain, to me, is that if certain players continue to exhibit their same behavior with yet another coach there might be a need to move those players. Fun times...

Perhaps I missed where the Democrats are importing illegal citizens into the country? They may not be as opposed to it, but to declare that they are the causation of it is unfounded. People have been entering this country illegally for longer than any one party has had power. Enacting sanctuary policies does not import citizens, it merely makes it harder for ICE to deport them. We can discuss the pros and cons of that but I would not equate that to importing. There's no correlation between gun rights and immigration other than to address your "Trying to defend a policy that takes even just 1 citizens life, is in essence saying, they were expendable for the greater good of a policy that had no greater good for them. " To which my point is, the same holds true for supporting a policy that makes it easier for guns to be obtained (or vice versa, opposing legislation that makes it harder). That is all. Whether these policies are applied at the local, state, or federal level. One last question, and I understand there may be data to support claims in sanctuary cities, but Texas has no sanctuary policy of which I am aware. The data you posted, while I don't doubt as being factual for number of homicide convictions of illegal citizens, is still in question for whom those acts were committed against. It would be more prudent for discussion to look at the number of illegal citizens convicted of homicides in cities that have sanctuary policies, at least if we are to discuss the problem of sanctuary policies relative to the problem of illegal immigrant criminal activity. If the data is not substantively different for Texas and sanctuary cities then I wouldn't question it, per se.

I vote the latter. But yes, it is possible that Tallon knew he was getting Quennville and may have known for some time. In which case, there was never a chance of getting Quennville and as such... no need to be mad.

He basically said he gave Housley a chance to see if he could get the players turned around and he failed. That's the way it goes. The guy was only in his second year. You have to give someone a chance. Based on his comments during the 10 game win streak it wasn't as though he expected this team to make the playoffs, just improve. They had improved but then dropped, like an anvil in a Road Runner cartoon. The discussion with Quennville can happen the entire season. The only thing they wouldn't do is hire the guy while Housley is the coach. No one was missing out on the big fish. The timing of the firing may indeed have been driven by the Panthers moving quickly. The press would now be all over the Q watch and any Sabres discussion would likely come out. So, you have to make the change in order to pursue at a deeper level. If they had fired Housley 4-10 games ago then they have to put someone else in charge, etc. At that point, let the guy finish, it makes no difference. Bottom line? The Sabres have every chance of landing a coach, but may not simply because of past relationships.

Help me out. The article you quote is not entirely clear on what numbers in each section are duplicated and which are not. It seems the last number in the article, 1,138 convictions of homicide is the most inclusive. However, this data does not delineate on the victim of the crime does it? As such, the victim could be another person who illegally entered the country, right? See above. Could not an argument be made that those who support less restrictive gun ownership laws also then support those who would use such weapons to commit murder? Certainly not all gun owners commit crimes, but then not all illegal immigrants commit crimes either do they? If we ask the families of victims of gun violence would we not expect similar responses? See above. The right to gun ownership and defending that policy would fall into what you have stated. Please support your claim of Democrats celebrating murder. Also, the crime numbers as I pointed out above do not appear to delineate on illegal immigrants killing each other and they certainly do not delineate the victims based on race. Your use of race here is immaterial to the point you are trying to make, you even say so, but yet you use it and you choose to use violence against Caucausians when as far as you know, they could have been the least impacted race in the statistics provided. A wall may limit the number of illegals entering the country, but it won't eliminate it. Just as gun laws may limit the number of gun deaths, but it won't prevent them. Do you support more restrictive gun ownership laws? Because even legal gun owners do really stupid things like this event that happened while I was in Arkansas last week: https://www.foxnews.com/us/arkansas-men-shoot-at-each-other-while-wearing-bulletproof-vests-police