LTS

That's open ended, so I don't know how to respond. Let's just say, I assume it would depend on which you'd rather be doing at the time.. announcing the game or sitting in your house. But the point, to address pi, is whether broadcasting is causing any additional stress to increase the risk to his health. I don't know if that can be answered. I don't want to speculate with relation to RJ. But there's stress in doing something and there's stress in no longer doing something as well. It really depends on what it means to that person.

The question is... would he have been wheeled out of his home on a gurney just the same?

It's kind of amazing (and in some ways not) the amount of Twitter traffic related to RJ. Naturally it runs the gamut.. but to have him trending on Twitter in the US is indicative of something. I'm basically still up tonight hoping for some word on his condition... and naturally I want it to be good news, for him.

I read Oshie's comment as basically saying.. Berglund recognizes that he was traded because of his own mistake and he's willing to walk away from the money in order to control where he plays next. He wanted to be in St. Louis but messed up that situation. If he ends up back there I would raise an eyebrow as I am not sure how you sign a contract with a guy who forced you into this situation. Sometimes it's really not about the money.

Didn't watch too much of last nights game... once I heard the Caps announcers I couldn't stomach listening to the game. NBCSN is dead to me for this. Will miss part of tonight's game.. (yep, kid has a game). Oh well, spending time with family is more important anyway. Let's Go Buffalo. Time for a win.

Looks like I will watch this one... despite it being NBCSN... sigh.

No comment. ??

So perhaps he ends up as a Sabres scout in Sweden where he gets paid a decent amount that doesn't count against the Cap? I can understand this viewpoint and especially that taking into account the Jeremy White tweet shared above too.

Ahhhhhhh..... yup. I want to see this kid's Dad.. because I'm curious where he learned all those mannerisms from.

Or you clearly define "best". The best team of the regular season is. The best team of the playoffs is. The best man in ThunderDome is...

So, at best you are left with an inconclusive result. No best team.

The NFL playoff format rewards the best team with a bye. This is inherently different than the NHL which does not. Objectively, all you can say is the team has to play one less game. It doesn't mean their last two aren't harder than another team's three. And it doesn't matter, you either win or you do not. If you do not, you weren't the best. You were successful, but not successful enough. As for why I am in the conversation? Because this is an open forum and the conversation was on playoff formats. Sorry, if my viewpoint doesn't meet your needs here, but that does not mean I was not supposed to not comment. The playoff formats, to me, are going to be directed largely at maximizing revenue and I have no problem with that. Because in the end, you have to win the games you are given to win it all. No excuses. The test gets run once and the variables are reset. This isn't a lab where you can reproduce results. The variables are constantly changing. See below. Also, injecting a meme into this would have cheapened the intellectual nature of the conversation, I am glad it did not work. I agree with you. The best team, as defined by the regular season, is the one who finished with the most points. Even then, people will argue, if it weren't for this or that happening another team might be considered the best. It's all speculation of course, because you define the best as the team that gets the most points (best record, whatever). How are you then arguing against my statement that the best team in a series or in a game is defined by the team that wins. It seems that now people who want to argue that are saying if it wasn't for this or that, etc. An objective measure is not open to interpretation. Winning is objective. It either happens or it does not. Losing because "I played bad" or "the refs screwed up" or "I forgot my helmet" or any other excuse is one of a myriad of variables that could have influenced the outcome. No one handed the Patriots the Super Bowl trophy because they hadn't lost until the last game. How many Patriots are walking around bragging about how they were the best team of that year? I am guessing none of them, because they didn't win the Super Bowl.

So you are subjectively defining the "best team". My argument is that objectively, the "best team" is the one who wins. Everything else is an excuse as to why it didn't happen.

The first bolded: I don't care who plays who. You just have to win. To second: Yes.. the same teams. If you finish first and end up playing the second tea first or the 8th team first... the path remains the same. If an upset occurs then you have a break in your statistical ranking and as such you have to question why it happened. There's expected outcome and results. The results are indisputable aren't they? See above... you can use statistics to make an educated and reasonable conclusion. So, when that conclusion does not happen what do you do? Because it did not happen with the Patriots.

But they did not.. so you are expecting it to be the case. However, the only other game that compares the GIants to the Patriots was decided by 3 points. That's hardly domination and enough to warrant "destruction". The Giants could have been built to be competitive with the Patriots that season. We'll never know, but we can make subjective guesses. I'm not arguing against that. I'm only saying that the "best" team won the SB because regardless of any other opinions.. they did, in fact, win.

Hope it's not the Swedish flu... that's rough, ask Berglund. ?

Explain to me how this is objective if they lost. You can want it to be objective, but it isn't. Objectively, the Patriots had the best record in the regular season. They were 16-0. The Patriots even managed to beat the Giants in the last game of the regular season, 38-35. You are saying they had a bad game. I could argue that the Giants forced them to play that bad. The Giants were better and capable for making it happen. The only measure we have is that the Patriots lost. That is objective. It is subjective to say the Patriots had a bad game. In the end, it was a 1 game series... if you include the final game of the season at best you are at 50/50. In hockey, the teams play best of 7 series, so the "better" team has to have 4 bad games. This makes the statistical outcome even harder to overcome, so if it is overcome then shouldn't it lend even MORE support to saying the team that won is "better" since they had to win 4 times against the subjectively "better" team?

The last phrase is amazing. Let's follow this logic being used by the author. Reid believes he is being targeted by the NFL. The author believes the league is "likely looking for any reason to make Reid go away". As such.. The NFL must believe that Reid is going to either screw up the process of taking the drug test or fail one. My guess is that they'd have to hope on the former because Reid, if knowing he's in the headlights of the NFL, fails a drug test, he's an idiot. I don't think he's an idiot. Therefore, if the NFL is rigging the outcome they are actually countering their own agenda (if it is their agenda) and giving Reid a platform on which to speak. Now it's entirely possible the NFL is that ignorant, we shall see. But it's a helluva stretch by the author and just more inflammatory language. I will give the author credit for attempting some math with it. A better ending would be: "Considering Reid and the NFL's relationship, hitting on those odds that often certainly raises questions on what is happening with the random drug test procedure and a reason to confirm that no intended bias is causing Reid to be tested more frequently." Of course that's my opinion and I'm certainly not in the majority of the reader demographic for the media... PS. Lanny did not say that.. but the quote from a highlighting text function is pretty cool.

Like I said, what defines the best team. You even lead your statement with "i believe". The "best team" is not easily quantifiable. The Sabres were the best team in the regular season as realized in their point total. My point is, if "best team" is subjective, then any plan that calls for the "best team" to have the "easiest path" by playing "lesser teams" is also subjective. The only thing for certain is who wins. So, to be the best you have to win.

Players are given chances in practice to show what they can do as well. Berglund has never been that dynamic player. Randall outlined his ability to basically create a very boring ice surface (if I am recalling correctly). Something along the lines that points aren't scored when he;s out there, either for or against. I thought he was fantastic in his role... he felt otherwise it seems.

Calling it ridiculous is a stretch without facts. The ONLY fact is that Eric Reid has stated he's been testing 7 times in 11 weeks. There are important questions to be asked before I would call it ridiculous. But hey, calling it ridiculous grabs eyeballs right? Why not just ask the NFL and NFLPA to clarify: How many other players have been tested at the same rate? What is the expected test rate of the random algorithm? Those answers provide context. The next is determining if he just happens to be the victim of a statistical outlier. I like Eric Reid and his entire approach to this so far, but if it's just chance, it's just chance. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25403736/nflpa-looking-eric-reid-allegation-excessive-drug-testing - as of Nov. 29 they were.

Your entirety of responses is based on the season overall. I said "THE GAME" was miserable. Man... We have two goalies that I am excited about. They did NOT bail the Sabres out against Washington though. The Sabres lost. The top line creates amazing chances, but didn't score enough in that game to overcome the defensive mistakes. The D is improved, but not enough to not allow those defensive lapses I was referring to in that game (and then in Boston) Dahlin is wonderful and I like Pilut. But Pilut didn't play in that game and Dahlin made mistakes.. he's going to make mistakes. I could go on, but I think you get my point. If you want to rebut what I said, then please rebut what I actually was talking about. A single game.

People will always question the coach, even if he wins the Stanley Cup. That doesn't mean anything. Overall, you argue that Berglund should be given a proper chance. What is a proper chance? How do you earn it? Overall I have faith in Housley. Every person makes mistakes in a singular fashion, I don't see Housley racking them up in repetition. I could say the same thing about Mitts. But he's not a veteran making millions of dollars and he hasn't walked away from the team. So, what did you want me to say about him? He's playing the role the coaching staff is putting him in. I think it's a fine role because frankly I don't think there's anyone else to play it. He's 19(20?) and he's learning. This team is overachieving where I think they should be and I am fine with it.

Well, then how do you define who the best team is? People say the best team should have won. I say, if the team won, they were the best. There's really no other way to put it. Any reason for that specific series points to the team that won doing things (or having less fragile players, etc.) than the other team. They were the best at that moment in time and the reality is, that's the best we can do. If you want to begin to break down every factor that goes into it, you can. But the outcome remains the same.

My point about the regular season is that it's not used to determine who the best team is.... so finishing with 117 or 94 points is irrelevant as long as you get in. In theory the 117 point team should win... but we know better. As for the easiest route to the championship, let me try this a different way. Disregarding the other conference... Your team plays the teams that finished 8, 4, 2 and gets to the championship. Your team plays the teams that finished 2, 4, 8 and gets to the championship. What was the easier road? They are technically the same although most people would say the first is easier. I would say that the first provides the most likely opportunity to move into each successive round, but when amassed as the entire path the difficulty remains the same. You played the same 3 teams and had to beat them. I am not accounting for financials and a desire to play more games. Examine the first scenario... a common rebuttal would be that 4 could get taken out by 5 and then you;'d play 5. Well, if that's the case would you consider 5 a tougher team than 4? I mean, they just beat them. In the end... you have to beat the best team or hope they lose along the way. If they lose, are they the best team?