LTS

You can't judge on one season either. Vigneault's history says he's not a difference maker. Quenneville? Maybe. Keefe.. way too early to give him credit. Fair... but I think he's HC bound. Trotz is a good example, but he's just one and he had already shown how he turned around Washington. That said, I believe there was some skepticism when he was let go from Nashville. I think Trotz has made the Islanders better.. he made Washington better. Most coaches don't fit that bill though. I don't think Gallant does either... not based on what we've seen to date.

Look.. it's important that you get 50 goals... that's a requirement. So much so that the only true snipers in the league since 2010 are: Ovechkin x5 Stamkos x2 Crosby - x1 Perry - x1 Malkin - x1 Draisaitl - x1 Those guys grow on trees.. you can get them anywhere. ?

Honestly think this assessment is a bit spotty. Could be a reach.

It was a slight typo. First year - cup final. That team had no worries. No expectations and they played that way. It was predicted reality would set in.. it did. Second year - circumstances.. they lost. So be it. You can't project past there, because they lost. You can try, but they lost. What else do you want? My kid comes home from his games some nights and tells me "We should have beat that team." My response? "You didn't. So apparently should doesn't give a damn about what you think." It is a result oriented game. Third year - they are not winning. My point is not that he's a bad coach. It's that a coach does not make a team great. So, don't overvalue a coaches ability to turn a team around. It takes talent and coaching, and mostly talent. This is why McLellan has not made a difference in Los Angeles This is why Babcock was not the saviour he made out to be. This is why Gallant ain't as amazing as people think. This is why Laviolette isn't going to change things. This is why _________ won't make Buffalo better than they are right now. I don't think Vegas should have fired him, but that does not mean the Sabres should hire him to replace what they have.

Yeah, I remember when Babcock was our lord and saviour as well. How about McLellan? There is a truth to "just make a change, because the next coach can make Evan Rodrigues an all-star" mentality.. it doesn't work that way. Too much value in coaches... too much. I'm hardly out to lunch. I'm not saying he's terrible. I'm asking if he's really as good as people think he is... because he's not proven much to me. His history certainly doesn't dictate it.

Sorry just skimmed the thread.. did I miss something? Is it that they use horses? (Yeah.. just bein' snarky) ? Good game though eh? Didn't see any of it.. sigh.

So he's been bounced twice, unceremoniously. The Panthers have done nothing to really improve. He went to Vegas, had a great year the first year then the team was playing with nothing to lose... and then what? First round loss and now fired. Why do people want him here? What has he proven? Nothing to me. It's just a case of "gimme anyone who can stop the losing" I think. But you bring Gallant in here and I don't think anything changes. At least not record wise... It's not the coach... coaches don't take bad teams and make them great. They take pretty good teams and make them great. They can always take a great team and make them bad.

True. I get it. I agree. I think everyone agrees. The question I think that drives debate is how much of it is on the current management (other than the owner) and how much of it is purely the mistake the decisions made during the first few years of the current ownership group. I don't want to hash that out here (plenty of threads for that!)...

Uhhh.. thanks? A few things here: I don't hate this. Girgensons has the speed and can dig the corners. They've been using Eichel as the high forechecker in the zone because he can close the distance quickly on the breakout pass and his longer stick improves his ability to cause a turnover. He also has the speed to skate up the ice with Eichel. Also, if he shows well up there he might have increased trade value. Also, you only have so many resources at the moment, why not try it. If you are stocked with bottom 6 players, why not get one of those bottom 6 up to the top if they have a chance to produce? I still don't like the Johansson line. I don't know about Sheary on that line. I think I'd prefer Vesey. I think Sheary Asplund Rodrigues is fine.

Nothing keeps people here from freaking out. Not a single thing. I mean, I would expect the argument to be that Reinhart is not Backstrom, not even close, so he's not worth 11.3% of the salary cap upper limit. I mean right now he's the guy who should be traded (according to some). He's the only asset that get back a 65 point player in return that will fix the Sabres scoring. ?

It's Game Day, and perhaps you don't care anymore. The Sabres play the Knights. It happens at 7pm. As per usual. I figured I would start the GDT even though I won't see the game tonight (kid's got a game at 7pm). I figured I would start the thread because I'm still a fan of the Sabres regardless of what is happening right now. I may not go nuts over the team. I may not be interested in spending a lot of time on them. But I am still a fan. So, this thread is for those who are still fans of the team to discuss the game. Because we are still here. Because this place is a place to discuss the Sabres and despite the prevailing devil may care attitudes, people keep show up day in and day out to do so. I won't get all in depth with what lines are, etc. But I will start the GDT.. because even if the Sabres aren't worth it, Sabrespace is.

It doesn't matter if their were no WMD. The political wheel... sigh.

Any guy who thought bringing in Subban was a good idea... no.

I don't pay attention to what critics say. I do however pay attention to what people I know say on Facebook. It gives me insight into the kind of people they are. This person, up until that post, had been trending in the "No need to ever see/hear anything you have to say again category." That post sealed it. The point in this case however was not so much what that person's opinion was, but that timing in which that person decided to share it and when questioned about it decided to double and triple down in the comments (by the time I saw it).

Yeah, no way I felt compelled. First, music appreciation is in the ear of the beholder. I don't fault anyone for liking anything. If you like it, you like it. But you have to be a special kind of dick to get on Facebook and post what that person did. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but there's no need to just throw that out there in the faces and hearts of those who really loved the guy and what he meant to Rush. This is the world we live in now. Sigh.

The only truth part is that they did it. Why, how, and everything else? Man, there's too many levels to try and figure it out. The Ukranian Airline simply asked why they didn't shut down the airspace if they were going to be launching missiles. That said, it was a surface to air missile that hit the plane (or so it was reported) so you don't use those to attack ground targets. I'm sure more will come out on this as the spinners get to work building the narrative. I mean, I have a wild imagination, so I could picture all kinds of things. ie. What if Iran's systems were hacked and the radar was tricked into thinking it was a military jet? I know one thing, I'm not getting on a Ukranian airliner anytime in the near future. I'm saying that with no ounce of snark intended.

Can't believe someone I know actually went on Facebook yesterday when the news was breaking and simply posted. "Rush - the most overrated band ever. They have maybe two songs and their overrated drummer wasn't even on one of them." You gotta be a special kind of person to post that. I would have never guessed that person would make that post. I won't see the future posts they make, and I'm okay with that. Saw Rush live once in the Aud. My ears bled for days. But Neil was a beast...

I'll catch a little before driving to Batavia for a varsity hockey game at 3pm. I love hockey, so I don't mind so much. But I mean, I'm not going out of my way to watch the Sabres at this point. They are what they are and with the injuries they are less than what they were. I hope they do well, as always, but it's their game is not compelling enough to make me change plans.

I think Weave clarifies below. But I have been thinking quite a bit of a better way to phrase this. So let's try this. You have 1 vote to give for a candidate. You can't split the vote. So by voting for someone who is/supports racism, you are giving your support to a person who engages in those activities and as such are supporting racism. This was the whole percentage discussion we had and speaks to the "lesser of two evils" discussion. If both are somewhat evil, then by voting for either of them you are (or anyone is) supporting the portion of that person that is evil. It's just how it goes. It does not mean that person engages in those actions, just that they are tacitly supporting the actions of another who engages or supports those actions. And yes.. this. Interesting. I mean, how do you accidentally shoot down an airliner? I didn't look at the timing, did it crash when they were firing missiles at Iraqi basis and accidentally hit the airliner? Right, we definitely don't know what the threat was. But if something was imminent, it seems to me that it would be all but planned and ready to go.

I think you R missing things.

I'm not going to pretend I understand your response. But I'll play along.. Yes, I wanted the refs to wing it. They were already winging it, so why not wing it some more?

Dan Snyder isn't the worst owner in sports? I didn't think it was close.

Off topic, but if you are going to talk about Canadian Juniors can you not abbreviate question by using Q? It took me a few minutes to figure out you were not talking about QMJHL, the Q. ?

I also appreciate the updates.. just wanted to say that. I don't have time to keep up with the Sabres much at this point, let alone the Amerks. I pretty much stop in here and read.

Why? You quoted the rulebook to refute. Clearly the rulebook was not the single defining factor in the decision making of the referees, at least not as it pertained to that officiating crew on that day, as such, it stands to reason that they were interpreting the rules. But that said, the rule itself for blindside blocks is broken all the time as players do come back up the field to block. I'm not about to go look for video, but I think that rule can be clarified to avoid what Ford did being a penalty, because it most assuredly, using common sense, should not be. It should not be illegal to block a guy who is looking at you. Either way, the complexion of the game changes. You can allow for either a TD or safety, but nowhere should the result have been a touchback. Two points and possession would have been beneficial as well. I won't say they would have won, that's impossible to know, but they would have had at a minimum 2 points extra on their side in the game.