HopefulFuture

Now this is reasonable given the observations on Stafford. And I agree, if any player needs to moved from the forward ranks, it's Stafford for sure.

1 game does not make nearly enough analytical data to support the bolded, it's just one game. I cannot support trading the leading scorer on this team, that's not sound strategy.

Mr. Ott is just straight out awesome, I love this guy more and more as we get to know him on a regular basis. He seems to embody what I remember WNY's character from the 70's. Thank you Steve!

Because O’Reilly spent the last three years in Colorado, he’s not viewed as a free agent who is joining a NHL team from Europe midway through the season. As a result, he does not need to clear waivers before suiting up for the Avs again. Accredited to this article: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2013/03/01/calgary_flames_fortunate_colorado_avalanche_match_ryan_oreilly/

I rarely post in GDT's. I was at work last night so didn't catch the 2nd Gerbe goal replay until this morning, I have to say, that was just a great individual effort to maintain the approach and sling the puck up high like that. I have really enjoyed the Gerbe/Ennis on one line scenario, it appears, at least from my vantage of point of the replays I've watched, that their speed and shiftiness really causes D men fits. Am I wrong?

No counter point from me here, your observations and conclusions seem to be balanced and accurate.

:thumbsup: I completely agree with the 3 year time frame. Many fans may say it can turn around in less time, and that is a statistical possibility, but it's not even close to a relevant probability. 3 years is most likely dead on accurate "IF" the right moves are made, to move into Cup Contention. IMHO.

All very valid points. I can speculate, and surmise some, but it would still be speculation. I can however, point to the current roster and say this product was authored or co-authored by Darcy Regier, it has failed, it's time to move on from his efforts to put together a successful roster. To me, in any event, once this occurs, we can then see another individuals vision and abilities to try to do so, it's a sight better than dealing with this repetitive cycle of a Darcy Regier product.

I stand corrected, touche' kind sir ;)

Trading for O'Reilly is a joke. The kid has one season over 50 points and to hear it on this board, he's the second coming. Please, wake up to the reality that he is not going to remotely come close to solving what ails this team. As for a top draft pick, yea, but that also will not come close to solving this teams woes. GoDD, nice looking plan, but it won't happen, to many moves, and not realistic on the demand side for some of those you mention as well as who you want to keep. Many of those you list have dissappeared as well, so it should be obvious they aren't game changers......yet. The only thing that is going to right this ship is to get rid of Darcy and have patience for another 2 or 3 years IMHO.

Yea, this makes zero sense. I have to ask, not being sarcastic, but very serious, have you ever played a team sport? There is a reason why the word "TEAM" is a part of that equation. If you honestly believe that players in a team sport devalue other members on their team, your sadly mistaken. For if they did so it's the sure fire recipe for failure, since it's a team concept, not an individual one. And I'm not saying you said his teammates called him out, but your comment suggests his value is of such that he is not worthy of expressing himself, and that is just a complete falsehood. With that said, Leino has every right to speak out, regardless of how fans feel about his play or whatever their personal feelings are on the guy, and by the way, he's dead on accurate in his statement......... Just sayin...... Many excellent questions should come from your statement here and your follow up question. My opinion of the Power Play after watching the first part of this season comes down to one observation, maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to hear others take on it. My opinion, the lack of puck control most times that enables them to cycle the puck around to get a player into position for the snipers mark. And to top it off, it appears to have been the M.O. for other teams for the past 2 to 3 years to just pressure the Sabres and they go into some sort of hurried panic mode with the puck, forcing foolish decisions and most times give aways. To me, in any event, that's talent, not psychological, if it was all in the head, they could learn to calm down and make sound decisions, but the passing is just horrible, and continues to be, that, to me, is talent.

Well said. This is exactly my sentiments on the team. It's not a lack of effort, it's a lack of talent in my opinion as well.

I remember Punch, long before Ruff, and this team did not suck. The team waffled after the 77/78 season for 10 years, but no different than what has happened the past 5 years. The greatest Sabres team to take the Ice in the franchises history was the 74 to 76 squads. Just unbelievable to watch them play. Hasek's team couldn't compare to them, as he carried it almost alone. The closest team in Sabres history to that team was the 05 to 07 squad. Firing Ruff, although many are emotionally attached to the situation, is one of several moves that will be needed to bring this team to Cup contention in my opinion.

According to many sports journalists, when asking around the league what the major problem with the Sabres is, it's talent. And after watching 5 years of the post Drury/Briere teams, I completely agree. It's not just a lack of compete, or not enough hard work, this team truly lacks the talent.

It's easy to feel emotional about the situation if your a younger fan and knew nothing but Lindy Ruff as the coach. For us older fans, it's just another progression in the franchise's history. Let us hope as one era closes, the new one beginning finally brings that elusive Stanley Cup winning season to us.

Many on this site, many fans in general conversations around the water coolers at work, at home, just about everywhere, have been saying for 4 years now that Lindy and Darcy need to go. I myself have held my fair share of fire them now rally's. But it has to be abundantly clear to Terry Pegula that changes are most certainly needed in the management of the roster and coaching said roster.

Roast or no roast, I tend to agree with sizzle in that individuals (or groups for that matter) tend to view things through a situational type rose colored glasses. All this discussion is in great fun, and debating the issues of the past and future in so far as their relation to the present is a good way to gauge the depth of feelings politically overall. But in the end, debate or not, I have yet to hear a definitive plan, with details, on any significant subject we, as a nation, face today. I'm by far no Obama supporter, but I give the guy credit where credit is due. He took on and attempted to tackle one of those generationally defining subjects. That of Health Care. Like it or not, believe it's broken or not and discuss the private/public affiliation with it, there is no denying it is one of the top 5 issues of our times. So, with that in mind, my question to the broader board membership following this thread is the following: Knowing what the nation as a whole faces in the present day age, can anyone list the top 10 topics that should be up for debate where the candidates should be giving detailed plans on how they plan to face those challenges?

Oil is tied to diesel no different than gasoline is. But in any event, the point wasn't so much the reduction on the wallet as it was to say there is no viable, detailed plan from either candidate. And the single largest rise in consumer goods prices is gasoline on a national average over the past 13 years. That's the telling part right there.

And actually, the President is wrong. He's cow-tipping to the oil industry. Oh, I know people will ask how. It's quite simple actually and it was an oil tycoon from Texas that has a good portion of the solution. You may laugh, but when you investigate the numbers and look at the scientific facts, you won't laugh so hard then. T. Boone Pickens. He has the right idea. Use Natural Gas, a product that demostically we are filled to the brim with, even without fracking, as a bridge to those technologies down the road. Take the trucking industry and put it on natural gas and that is 22% of the transportation situation in this nation off of oil. It may not solve all of the situation, but it is a start. What's holding up T Boone you ask? That's right, government regulation. It's utterly pathetic, the leadership we have in this nation at this time in history, and we have no one but ourselves to blame.......

Absolutely. I was up in Canada with MMR Group at the oil sands, and it's costing .89 barrels of oil to extract 1.46, with that equation in mind and given the oil isn't the quality that is being utilized to extract it, it's not nearly a perfect situation. When I listne to these bum's that are running for the WH, whether it be Obama or Romney, it's always the same bi-lines on energy, and, specifically on oil. There is an absence of any type of true plan. Here is the simple truth, and we all know it, but it needs to be said. Oil is the single most important resource the US needs. Electricity is a distant second to transportation. And sadly, it's personal transportation that is the Goliath in the room. When I hear a candidate actually have a cognizant thought of lowering the dent to our wallets from fuel costs with a viable plan, I'll sit up and listen. Currently, these morons are so concerned with health care costs, tax code overhauls and bickering over issues such as a woman's right to abort a pregnancy that they miss the larger picture. Fuel costs, combined with the removal of Industrial Age industry and over abundant corruption in governing bodies from the local level up to and including the national level are dooming this nation. Like Rome itself, we are literally writing our own epitaph not only as the worlds current economic and military power, but also the moral global power. And the drum beat rolls on...............

This was a very well put answer. But, the global population isn't shrinking, the demand for oil isn't either. So you are correct in believing that there is a direct corralation between the 2. Normally, 42% to 44% of a well is extracted, however, the technology you refer to to increase that amount is called geological sequestration, wherein, a gas is used to form a bladder around the remaining existing oil in a well, normally CO2, forcing the pressure induced removal of the oil. And yes, I also agree the oil companies are pricks and will use any and everything at their disposal to increase profit margins. But the undeniable fact is that since the 70's, there hasn't been an explosion of exploration until the last 6 years, and now, it costs volumes more as companies providing the equipment, personnel, services...etc...etc... are also cashing in. But the point is, all of the above is moot, the fact remains that light sweet crude supplies in accordance with demand growth are dwindling, and quickly, more quickly than your letting yourself believe.

Do you honestly believe oil is an infinite resource? News flash, it's not. If you want to do the research, you'll find that oil exploration is off the charts price wise, and that isn't due to inflationary rates I assure you.

This is a short term issue. Hubbard's Peak has been reached. Basically, you'll never pull enough oil out of the ground to meet demand.

But there-in lay the problem. It's just another government take over of private sectors. It's not what this nation was founded on. And contrary to your belief, they do nothing to bring competitiveness to the US. The cheaper labor overseas far out weighs what you speak of here, if it didn't, what you propose would be getting done. Corporate America, and Global for that matter, are making money hand over fist the old fashion way, slave labor.

The reason I state that is the private venture capital that will be in play to upgrade those privately owned transmission lines. You see, the thruway system is publicly funded, but the transmission runs aren't, atleast, so negligible that the pro forma on a project like that would see less than 2% investment gain by any public funds granted. That comes back to the risk taken by the private equity parties into such an endeavor. My point on the dollar amount being that the US economies manufacturing base has been gutted, and with it, the larger demand for power for years to come. There is no incentive to invest in a market that is stale and unlikely to bring the returns such other markets are like southeast asia.