LTS

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?

I think Ullmark stretched something a little too far on one of those late game saves the other night. He looked slow to get up... he made the save though! ?

What is the proper chance? How does one earn it or do you expect him to just get paired with some wingers and see what happens? These arguments (made by you and others) boil down to the same basic question. Do you believe the coaching staff is able to evaluate the players on the team or not? Given all the time together, on the ice and off the ice, they make decisions on who will play best together and secondary spots as well. Keep in mind he was put on PP1 and did nothing. Given the improvement in this team I am more likely to put faith in the coaching staff (and the players who play). Berglund didn't earn his stripes and now he's walked away. Based on the given evidence perhaps he should have turned in his paperwork (or fire his agent for not doing so). Either way, he's gone the unprofessional route. I'd lend credence to a mental issue only if i heard other players saying "He's dealing with some stuff" and other similar things. Instead you clearly can tell it's more of a "we don't need your drama here". Eichel's comments and his use of the team motto "All in, all out, all the time." isn't done by accident. It points to Berglund not buying into the concept.

Careful... I got roasted when I suggested that the Leafs were not light years ahead of the Sabres in their rebuild earlier in the year. The playoffs have a tendency to destroy offense. The Leafs Nation... can suck it. I don't care what they think. They've been overestimating their chances since 1967 and are blind the salary cap train that is about to truck their team in the next season or two.

You gotta win to win it all. Whether you beat the best team in the first round or the last round. If the owners were worried about other things they'd modify the playoff format. It's not happening, yet. It probably will be modified again but the same holds true. If a team with 155 points loses in the first round then that's just too bad. If you want to use the regular season to determine the best teams then you remove the playoffs entirely and let the top two teams play each other. As long as there are playoffs the "best" team is the one who survives the playoffs.

While you could say that Guhle would not have had to play defense if the puck had gotten out of the zone I don't see how you can put the penalty on Reinhart. Guhle twice had his hand move down to grab the player and he pulled it back and then the third time he got called for it. Frankly I thought he actually tried to grab the Bruin to keep him from falling but it's still a hold. I don't see the penalty as a direct result of having to cover for someone's mistake (like hooking or tripping a guy who gets the puck on a turnover with a clear path to the goal).

So he would have been fine with being assigned to Rochester?

I mentioned it in the above quote. Hopefully that answered it. Basically, shoddy defensive zone coverage and no real speed. They looked much better in the Bruins game although the Bruins aren't half the team the Caps are at the moment. Even then, the defensive zone coverage has to improve as they gave up both goals last night on poor coverage. Given where the team has climbed to this season I am happy.. how could you not be. But that game was not enjoyable for me to watch with them playing so poorly. A year ago I would have been ecstatic with the outcome.

The Sabres were lucky. I grew tired of the Caps continually exposing the poor defensive zone coverage of the Sabres. Saw it again last night in the Bruins game. Look at both goals and where players are looking and standing. The Sabres looked slow and sloppy most of the night. What is the point of your question? What kind of response did you hope to elicit? I'm not entirely certain but I'll attempt an answer. No, they were not. I would agree with your last statement. There are things people see and things people don't see which will influence their enjoyment of the game. Some people find the all-star game entertaining. Then again, some people think Taylor Swift has talent.

There are even some of those here.... like me.

Another game to watch... yay? Last night was miserable to watch. Oh well.. Let's Go Buffalo.

This is the one thing that gets lost when we have these discussions. Back when I used to have some connections I would get hints of things that were happening. Even then, the people who knew weren't saying specifics, just mentioning that there are some "things and such" going on that shape what we, the fans, were seeing. Bottom line for me and ROR... if every team he plays for continues to struggle when he's there, then it's enough for me. I don't care what the situation is with him, just glad that he's not here and the team is improved.

Says the guy with no money... ? Actually, I can watch the game while I am at the rink. It's not as fun but I will see parts of it.

Good news... my son does not have a hockey game tonight. Bad news... he has hockey practice for both of his teams tonight. I might get to see the third period. Let's Go Buffalo!