LTS

The increasing trend of society to focus on the 1% of negativity versus the 99% of neutral to positive. Every GD meeting at work is this way. It happens here too. Hell it happens everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if someone submitted a paper title "Time Travle: Now a Reality" and it was rejected during peer review because of the typo. "Did you read it?" "Yeah" "What feedback do you have?" "Well clearly you spelled travel wrong, so you're an idiot." I can't wait for the day when society finally understands that just because you can comment it doesn't mean you should.

Yeah, sorry I missed an edit to go back and update Quinn to 3 times. You use the word funny, but not sure why. Even if I didn't single out the others Quinn is the only player who has been on the ice for 3 of the goals. So yes, I focused on the player with the 75% failure rate versus 50%. Did you know who was on the ice and how many times before I posted that? If so, great, then you knew Quinn was on the ice 3 times and that I got it right in my details but missed in the summary. If not, then maybe not complain about a mistake that was made. I could go on about the others. I blamed Tuch in one of the games because he left the slot guy open, which then opened the center of the ice. Power lost his guy on the boards who eventually scored. Thompson pinched on a play when they were changing the third player and he should have made a better decision. All in all Tuch is not good at man coverage, Thompson and Quinn are not good at any coverage. Power is not good and Dahlin, while good, needs to cover for the rest of the defensively inept players who are put on the ice. Were you aware of the goal visualizer? I also added that value. I suppose if you knew then great, but I tried to point out something cool about how we all could watch the players on the ice and clearly see where they made mistakes. I'm glad your point was to focus on a simple mistake though. That really raises the conversation bar doesn't it? Why did you use the word funny and then not bother to explain how that word fit in your post? I mean, if we're being pedantic.

Interesting choice given that he's part of the goaltending problem of the Blues right now. He has his moments but more often than not he doesn't.

What game is it again? Can the thread title be updated with it?

Meh.. the Sabres need to try something different in OT. Ray made a comment last night about 5 straight let's you learn. He's not wrong. The problem is they are not learning. Quinn is a 3 v 3 nightmare. Players on the ice for the last 4 OTL games when the game was decided, Quinn has been on for 2 of those Utah: Tuch, Quinn, Dahlin Boston: Thompson, Quinn, Dahlin Columbus: Power, Tuch, Kulich Toronto: Thompson, Quinn, Power It might be time to NOT put Quinn out there. It's not working. Overall as I was reviewing this, if you've not reviewed the NHL goal visualizer yet, you should. Here's last nights game center - https://www.nhl.com/gamecenter/buf-vs-uta/2025/11/04/2025020203 I find it funny when they show all the players jumping over the boards and the puck being shot down the ice. It's also a good way to see where players were at when things happened from a top down view. Good enough to get to OT, but they are not skilled at 3 v3 which requires even better man to man coverage on defense. And of course, you don't allow a goalie to play the puck to his own team.. kids are taught go to the net to get the whistle... why Tuch did not is beyond me.

Seriously. Tired of hearing <Buffalo Sports team Player> injured.

The answer to this is unequivocally yes. You can easily google official shortage and read the horror stories. I work with someone who is also a D1 college football referee. I've asked him about it and he absolutely indicated that it's a major problem.

I didn't change the discussion I simply asked a question. I appreciate your follow up, so here's mine. If both teams improve, would you say the team that improved less lost the trade even though they improved? If there are two winners in the lottery and one person won more than the other person it doesn't make the other person a loser does it? It just means they did not win as much. Win/Lose is a finite discussion. But, if both teams can improve, then are we moving out of a finite discussion? In the end, it's subjective so mostly it's just not a conversation worth having especially as the difference between outcomes gets closer.

Oprah, is that you? 🙂

Sweet lord... how does this move impact the 20 players that will dress for the Sabres tonight? At worst it limits their flexibility with the roster should someone get injured in the pre-skate warm-up (if they have one). If Zucker or Bryson go on IR then it frees up another move if need be. They can waive Geertsen, is anyone crying about that? It's not about tomorrow or the day after, they can bring UPL up now. At some point they will have to make a decision, but it's unlikely they will need to do so within the next week and at that point UPL would need to be back anyway. There have been lots of issues with this team, but is this really an issue? Right now, today?

So, using your logic, if both teams got better, then who won the trade? Both of them? Can you have two winners in such a finite contest? So, if the Sabres won, who did they win over? Utah? But, if Utah got better who did they win over? Buffalo? And if one says both teams improved, is that not a positive statement... about two teams in fact? I'm confused.

Regression to the mean... And Ellis, I'm not sure why people are high on him. He won but he didn't look all that good. He over committed on many plays and left a lot of rebounds. There is a lot more that needs to be seen. The issue remains that the Sabres don't have a top goaltender. They also haven't fixed a lot of their defensive problems but it hasn't completely bitten them in the ass yet. I wouldn't worry about 3 goaltenders on the roster right now. It's not like the players being scratched are all that valuable to the team.

The players need to realize that in order to get energy from the crowd they need to feed them first. Then the fans can reciprocate into an upward climb where both reinforce each other. The in arena experience will only go so far, especially when most people who show up are rooting for the other team or expecting a loss.

There's only one answer to this and it applies to everyone, regardless of playing hockey or not. We are only accountable to ourselves. We cannot control the actions of others. As far as hockey goes, any player who decides they don't want to play at their best cannot point the finger at anyone else. At the very best that player becomes equally as culpable as all the others who have "given up". Not trying because the team "sucks" and has "sucked" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Only by actually putting in the effort could anything change. if I am a GM on another team do I want to trade for a player who is willing to "give up" because of the situation? I'm not saying players don't do it. I just won't ever excuse it and I wouldn't want those players on my team or coming to my team.

That's awful... poor kids (and everyone). I've said it before.. dogs are better than people... so this kind of stuff just hits hard.

I've been traveling for work and forgot the season started... (no, I didn't but the Sabres did!). Anyway.. I can't root for losses because that actually takes energy. it takes no energy to not care and that's where I am at.

https://www.nicb.org/news/news-releases/vehicles-stolen-keys-left-inside-rise There are plenty of people who say to not to bother locking your car so your windows don't get broken. This is not that situation of course, but there are apparently plenty of people who leave their keys in the car. I know a few people who do it. All I know is I've spoken with people who don't lock their doors and have said those words to me. I lock my doors although there have been plenty of times when I haven't and even times when I left the garage door wide open and the inside door open.. overnight while I was away and nothing happened. That's me. But the point is the subjective nature... which it is, because it really depends on where you live and what you expect to happen.

I'll listen to what McDavid has to say about it. In the end he signed the deal and that's all that matters. There are certainly some concepts that cannot be applied any longer. There's no way to say McDavid's salary prevented building a winning team. He wants to win. I think he only has to look at the Panthers (who he has seen the past two finals) to understand that perhaps having the highest paid player in hockey is not the way to for a team to win a Stanley Cup. He's letting the Oilers go get resources and if they don't, he can demand the trade or wait it out. He's going to collect in 3 years.. one way another.

Since the start of the year the quality of this group has declined significantly. The recent spate of rhetoric, passive aggressiveness, and personal attacks has sealed the deal for me. So I am asking the rest of you for your input. I think what is happening in this club does not provide benefit to the overall forum as a whole and only serves to provide an additional pathway to negativity. The Sabres have provided enough of that on their own. I am traveling a lot this month and will barely be around to moderate. It's clear that despite repeated messages the intent to lower the flames here has failed. This has resulted in my decision to stop moderating this club. I will place a poll for people to determine the future. At the end of this week, by Friday morning, my interactions with this club will be over.

Yes, it can. But as I indicated, there are those who would say, "if I have to do that, then this is not the place I want to live any longer." As for fear and paranoia not being subjective we simply need to look at the FUD being bandied about on a daily basis. It's all about conjuring up fear where it likely shouldn't exist. It's not about painting a realistic picture but instead one with intent to "scare" people into an action whether it's statistically relevant or not.

Well there's the major issue here. Nothing happens to you until it does. It's realistically about probability versus possibility. Fear and paranoia are subjective and it becomes difficult to judge others for the levels they go to. We are products of our experiences. I've been robbed while working a job. I had a shotgun put up to my chest so I could feel the barrel. I didn't "plan" for that and I still don't. I don't walk around expecting it to happen. It's highly improbable. Now, if I were in certain areas I would be more aware. Similarly I would be less concerned in other areas. It's because it's less probable. Your take on locking doors is your opinion. It is an easy thing to do, certainly. But some people would tell you that if they felt they had to lock their doors then it would change the way they feel about where they live. If they feel that way, then they don't want to be there any longer. It's not so cut and dry. What precautions should the people at this bar have taken? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nigel-edge-north-carolina-bar-shooting-suspect-marine-veteran/

Do you find it odd that you are the only one in this forum who makes these wild allegations towards others? These are the types of things unhinged people say. I've mentioned this about you before. You engage in the same behaviors that you often call out about others. It's concerning really. You are also one who just posts YouTube videos.. so calling out someone for posting Tweets is an interesting behavior. This was not the kind of conversation I was suggesting in here. Instead of a conversation you decided to attack another poster. Is it about changing his mind or speaking your piece? That said, I'm not in favor of giving anyone free healthcare. I'm barely interested in paying for kid right now who seems to have adopted McDonald's as his go to. And that's exactly why I am not in favor of it. Funding other people's bad habits is not an interest of mine. I want people to have access to healthcare, 100%. But our culture is one that doesn't take into account personal responsibility. So, we end up funding healthcare for people who continually make bad choices. Is it racism? I don't think healthcare for illegals is a racist discussion. I think it's about asking why we would pay the healthcare for someone who is not a citizen of the country. I wouldn't expect Spain to pay for my healthcare. ICE was formed in 2003 as a result of the Homeland Security Act. We all know what precipitated that act and it was very much not a one party situation that voted for it. You can't put ICE on this administration. Certainly you can talk about how ICE performs its function in today's administration but it's been around for some time now.

Over/Under on the number of players who get injuries that put them out week to week?

Meh... instinct might be the wrong word but I know what you are getting at. Example below. A young female walks down a mostly deserted street in a nations capital, 6 hours after darkness falls. She has earbuds in and is staring at her phone. Is this naive? In the United States, one might think so. However, when I was in Stockholm I saw this in reality. There was a street, the only person I could see on it was me and this woman walking toward me. She did not even look up. I don't think is naive but a testament to the difference of crime rates and social experiences. Similarly I navigated the Stockholm public transit system at 2:30am without even remotely feeling in danger. I would think many times over doing that in most cities. It's not so much the instinct but the educated understanding that things work differently here. The situation is pretty much identical except for the society it happens in. We learn to fear things because we live in a culture that supports the behaviors we need to fear. In small towns in the United States people don't lock their doors. They don't fear having their house broken into. Common sense does come from life experience. Life experience is highly different for people. Your experience tells you to always distrust others. It does not mean it's the correct behavior. For the number of people you "don't trust to value life" how many of them actually don't? There's no way to tell of course. But, you can play the odds by assuming others don't and so this lowers your native trust.. We see the news and hear about how many interactions between people end up in murder. What we don't put into scope is the number of interactions between people that day that did NOT end in murder. We focus on the negative, and without context it drives our perception.

The lack of an opposing viewpoint in this thread is noticeable. Is there any support for the actions of the Democrats here?