LTS

I understood the overall point, but I find the linking of the two incidents to be a significant stretch. Milbury is capable of being an idiot all on his own, but what he said was in not in the same league as Roenick. I think if Harry Neale had said the same thing on a broadcast with that reach we'd be talking about it. If he had said it on a Sabres broadcast we would be talking about it, but perhaps with a slight delay while the hype train got going. I guess I wasn't sure what you were referring to. Milbury was naturally there to provide commentary but to do so in his style. His style would naturally grate on some people, but having that edge might appeal to the fringe hockey fans who are attracted to that kind of commentary.

And Jim Gaffigan doesn't need to swear for his comedy routine. The point being, however, that you hire a persona to deliver a certain type of product. You don't hire Milbury for the same reasons you hired Lorentz or Neale (although I would suspect they may have said some things in their time as well). This is meant neither to support or not support Milbury just to point out that there are different methods of performing the same job. This is stretching it quite a bit is it not? Roenick talked about having a threesome, etc. He was specifically discussing sexual acts with specific co-workers. Milbury simply discussed generic male hockey players getting distracted by women. Again, I am not here to weigh in on Milbury's comments as right or wrong. But I think it's a stretch to say they approach anything close to what Roenick said.

The reason I ask is that the Sabres made it to the Cup finals in 1975. Would it have been okay if they had won that series then? I realize we're not at that point with Vegas, but I was just curious on how you might compare the two situations. Naturally you can't add the additional years of not winning to the evaluation. In 1975 the Sabres were in their 5th season... not a lot of suffering had gone on (they weren't perennial playoff performers, that's true).

Doesn't the GM usually hire a coach that will implement and focus on a system that the GM believes should be played? I realize it's not that black and white, but the GM doesn't usually go out and find a coach that is not in line with some level of the philosophy of the GM on how to win in the NHL. The GMs of the two organizations are the ones who set the vision, acquire the players, etc. They take input, but the coaches don't run the show. But, frankly, I think after experiencing Taylor for the beginning of the season my guess is that they knew they were going to get rid of him. Last season was a throwaway season. (yes, another one). It was acceptable from the owner standpoint to allow them to assess their organization. I am sure they don't love being criticized, but in the long run if they do what is right and build a winner in a few years then no one will care enough to worry about 2020. If they don't? Well, they get to try again or sell the team... People like to think that businesses don't intentionally lose money, but that's simply not true. Of course it might be more accurate to say that a business owner is okay with not maximizing revenue for a period of time to allow for foundational initiatives to take hold. It's the same as intentionally losing money, but it provides a reason. I'm involved in a project right now that is losing money for the company, a lot of money, and they are willing to let it go because of the promise of the better tomorrow. I think the Pegulas are at that point, or were at that point, with the Sabres.

The more you talk about him, the more you legitimize him. ?

Hmm. Perhaps in open ice, top line speed... But he's a damn good forechecker and that's usually on account of the ability to quickly get to a spot and win battles for pucks. Extremely slow players aren't usually capable of that.

I'm curious when you think it would be okay for Vegas to win a Cup? How many seasons in?

I would expect a change with RK himself frankly. I think you overplay it. It really does not take two people to stop talking to each other. If one person is not listening then the other person is only talking at someone. Semantics perhaps. As we know, there was communication, it was just not from RK to Taylor, and to a certain degree that makes sense. The GMs should be the go between as the coaches are busy working on their teams. I think what's happening now is people are attributing more influence to RK and along with that is the expectation that he should have done more. I would disagree. I think his job was to evaluate from his position and still perform the HC duties, which he did. It was Adams who was obviously tasked with a deeper level of information gathering. All in all, it is what it is. I don't think Taylor was unsuccessful, but neither was he successful. He may have objected to the other changes going on and as such could have been construed as a potential ongoing problem in the organization.

I don't think I am fully following you here. You referred specifically to Rolston and that approach. As in, the approach of hiring a "development" guy? I would agree that having a talent gap is not something a development guy (or any coach) is going to fix. AS for the Krueger/Taylor thing... my guess is that Ralph was brought in to coach, but be an organizational consultant as well. I am sure we'll see more changes as time passes (not the normal time changes all things, but changes aligned with that aspect).

Ugh. It's all I got right now.

Yeah yeah.. whatever. How many "good" hires blow up? It's a crap shoot... always, with all teams. But those who have to think more about how they accomplish things might have a more constructed approach to the game in helping point out what it takes. As for the natural player? They are all over, in every sport, and in every walk of life. As though you've never heard anyone say 'he's a natural" or "I'm not sure how she does it, but she just gets it." "They make it look so easy." "He sees the ice." "He knows where the play will be" I could keep going on and on here. Who said he didn't work hard? Being a natural doesn't equate success, it just means you can do things others cannot. If you are a natural and don't work hard you are still not going to get anywhere. The idea about who can't do are good teachers is false. The good teachers are those who can do, but not well enough. Overall it boils down to knowing why you know something as opposed to just knowing it. If you know why you know it, then you can explain it to others. It doesn't mean the other person will get it, but if you can't explain it at all there's more than a fair shot that the other person will not get it. Also, keep in mind, Connor McDavid, and others are usually taught how to develop skills by those who were never the top athletes in the game. So, how did they get so good if they didn't have Wayne Gretzky telling them what to do? Oh yeah, they were taught by those who understood what to do and what it takes to do it.

Yes.. because this then that. It has? Time and time again? I mean, I've heard "Ron Rolston" that's it. Is there more here? I'm legitimately wondering. In addition, have times changed? The USNTDP has had its most success over the past 10-15 years with players being drafted... would that not indicate that they are doing something right?

Too bad its not time to take vacation again... 3 weeks of sitting on a beach. ?

They could have hired Scotty Bowman for this position and I am confident that people would ***** all over the announcement.

It's amazing how clueless people are and have to equate how a player played hockey to how a player can fulfill the role of assisting and leading others in developing their skills as a hockey player. Who's better suited for the role? A person with natural gifts that they can't explain what they had done to make it to the NHL or someone who had to work really hard and examine every aspect of their game in order to be a marginal player in the NHL? Maybe he'll do a good job, maybe he won't. No one knows, and people on this board sure as hell have no idea. The best you have available to you is having seen him play and somehow that makes you qualified to judge his ability to fulfill this position. It boggles the mind. Let's just make some ***** up about people and ***** all over them. As long as you feel better about yourself, that's all that matters right?

Look at it this way, at least your achilles injury is from working too hard. You pushed, it pushed back. Rest up and come back at it as committed as ever.

First day off in months. So needed. Started out with a nice flatbread breakfast pizza, then for a hike and hanging out by a creek for a bit. Had to stop home to get the kid to work and now we're off to Irish Mafia for lunch and some lazy summer afternoon beers to be followed up by more lazy summer afternoon beers at Seven Story brewing along the canal. Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaah..... so needed.

Surface? It plays to the immigrant vote, the non-caucasian vote, the female vote. I think she's qualified from what I know of her (then again, with the bar having been set so low now, who isn't qualified?). She's more centrist than anything else which would irritate more liberal voters but let's be honest, where are they going to put their votes? I would think Democrats want anyone but Trump and voting for any fringe candidate that could impair the vote for Biden/Harris would be detrimental to their own cause. Bottom line, I like the pick. I think there needs to be a qualified non-male sitting that close to the top and it certainly would set the stage for a historic election in 8 years if Biden were to win and she established herself more during that time. At this point I have a better chance of understanding quantum mechanics than how anyone can vote for Trump. Personally I am glad that I live in NY. This state will go Biden and it won't be close. I can still vote the way I would vote and not have any impact on the election. ?

Cool, although the article says his role has not been defined and goes on to say he will be the PBP. So confusing. And that answers the question I had... I might have to find a few clips.

Hallelujah.. they look excellent.

Not to be a jerk.. but I will be.. don't we usually have a mod post some "automated message" by now indicated that descriptive thread titles are important? I wandered in here wondering why we'd want to talk about Doug Bodger.

Gochugaru - Korean dried red pepper flakes, are my guess. You can guy them at Wegmans (McCormick no less) but absolutely at an asian grocery as well. They are spicy and tasty..

Hockey didn't stumble upon this. The NCAA began the concept of a play-in game a few years ago. It's just another way of pulling in more money and it's garbage. It's a playoff because the team that loses is done for good. But 16 teams from the middle playing each other is just too much variance. It makes the regular season damn near meaningless and it extends the overall season when the overall season is probably too long already. In any elimination series or game the lower seed has a chance to knock out the higher seed by getting hot, a few lucky bounces, an injury here or there. The reason you play the whole regular season is to allow those teams that deserve a shot at the championship to prove that while overcoming a hot opponent, a lucky bounce, or an injury here or there. As it stands now the top 16 provides enough of a chance for the lower seed to make a significant impact and win (ask the Kings). It's why teams shouldn't go all out to be the top seed because it usually means expending too much energy in the regular season and ultimately getting bounced in the playoffs. There's no advantage in the NHL for being the best team in the conference. You want to talk about giving byes to the top seeds, that would be a place to start. Have the lower seeds play for a shot to continue on while the top seeds rest up. Not sure I like that idea either.. but it's a damn sight better than the top 24 making it.

I made kimchi for the first time a few weeks ago. Amazingly easy and it turned out far better than i expected. Learned a few things and looking forward to making more very soon.

https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/buffalo-strong/local-business-delivers-fresh-produce-to-western-new-yorkers There's an option. There are public markets. Buy some seeds, plant some plants.. grow some food. Get together with neighbors and start a community garden. There's plenty of responses to the "inner city" problem. It's certainly not as prevalent as suburban areas, that's not in question. But to dismiss it as "distilled answer"? The same could be said of your "distilled response". People who WANT to eat healthy can find a way. Even if that includes walking 5 miles to a store and back or riding a bike 10 miles to a store and back. Exercise and healthy food in one. How about that? I think it's easier to say that people CHOOSE to eat the crappy fast "food" because spending $5 for two whoppers allows me to have more money for other things. They might need those other things, they might be able to live without them just as they choose to live without the healthy food and exercise at which point they are also choosing the downsides that comes with those choices that will cost them more money in the future. There are people who need the help, but let's not pretend that it's a majority issue. Instead let's recognize that people are making choices. More expensive does not mean other food is too expensive. If you want quality food, make it yourself. You don't get healthy food by eating at a restaurant and you sure as hell aren't going to save money.