X. Benedict

Hey, give that back! I'm pretty much lost without it. :P

If many think so, and he didn't mean to be, then he is at least guilty of a crime against clarity.

Is that a pink skunk stripe?

Faceoffs stats can get odious....winning faceoffs cleanly is really an art...do that and you clear the zone. If it gets scrambled and a teammate picks it up, that is as good as a win as far as stats go. But it doesn't mean you get a clean shot. Cleanly lost faceoffs in the D-zone cost the Sabres about 7 games last fall. So I'm not ready to say they are not significant, even disregarding stats, when I can see it in order --- .lost draw, puck teed up, back of net gets splashed. there was a textbook example almost every other night. I can tell you one thing though....it was painful to watch Ennis, and Hodgson lose on the dot. And that the bottom 8 teams in FO% didn't make the playoffs. Which usually means they are losing matchups at center ice.

Oh yes! I agree. With the Rangers I will sing - Potvin sucks! Potvin sucks!

In the defensive zone or on a PK, an undertalented Gaustad-type is almost always a solid play which line changes don't really much dictate- Home or away. Keep the puck out. Advance a zone. Be a snowplow. Neutral zone, he can be a liability. Bergeron is a bit of an exception in the sense that he can start in the defensive zone and still score. (should he win a draw) Very few players can do that. The last thing most teams want to do is take their best scorer and have him locked up 200 ft. away from scoring with a D- zone start. Having a Gaustad and a Bergeron on your roster, though, you can platoon them, and dictate the pace on each end. Poille probably thought Gaustad was worth a first rounder, because it would free up Mike Fisher for more offensive zone starts.

Phone connects Agent: Hi this is Sami Sometimonen, Ville's Leino's agent. Any interest? Any GM: Why sure, we are a little strapped at the moment, but give me your number, and we'll give you a call should the team bus tip over. Agent: Thanks Phone disconnects Agent to Ville: It could have been worse, they expressed circumstances where they could envision you joining the team. And I haven't even phoned Arizona yet.

Finally, athletes unashamed to sport the Manziere.

I want to see a team on the ice trying as hard as they can to win. Holding their heads up. Do I expect the Front office to go all in on a season that is most likely a lottery pick no matter what they do? - hell no.

Not just That :lol:

Generally, I think if you are winning or even, what you've done in that situation by playing Crosby and drawing say, Gaustad, is you've locked an inferior offensive player onto the ice, putting your opponent team into a defensive posture for a shift. Now even if Gaustad wins the shift, it is not likely he's going to score against you. Now a Bergeron is light years more dangerous. He can take your lunch and eat it, by winning the draw and scoring. I don't think anyone would call Bergeron the most gifted or athletic athlete, but he's awfully smart with the puck. So it is far more important to win a draw against Bergeron for sure.

Bryan Murray. Bryan Murray.

In this hypothetical, there isn't an administrative mechanism to do that yet, is there? My point is that religiously motivated people may be at the front lines of providing health care, in whatever shape or form, That's quite a presumption, that employees share ownership's values, isn't it? We might need specialized skills such as a trucker, a refrigeration engineer, and a massage therapist, who are all secretly carnivores and wear leather belts on the weekend. :) Not trying to be too absurdest here, but the Supreme Court decision really has sent this back to the Legislature and Administration for better honing such rules.

So my 5 brothers and I incorporate to sell veggie patties and other vegan foods, and in our covenant with each other, we, as a matter of our eco-friendly, Buddhist principles, decide that we don't want to contribute to any system that harms animals in any way. Once our corporation reaches 50 employees, the insurance we previously offered to our employees, a plan that excluded the Big Pharma companies that test on animals, and also excluded their their proprietary monopoly drugs, would no longer be ACA compliant because of ............our religious beliefs? We are then forced to create a health care plan that crosses a line we explicitly never wanted to cross. We would only have 2 choices: remain smaller than 50 employees, or opt out of providing any healthcare and pay the ESRP, which would in effect continue to economically support those bastard big Pharma mammal murdering companies we have been fighting against. In a sense I think the Supreme Court threaded tried to thread the needle here with their "closely held company" ruling.

Wegman's makes the Champagne of Subs?

yes, good point....the want is a bit odious.

Fun with Thesaurus: Head-scratching: Bucky suggests Bafflement, Bamboozlement, Discombobulation and Confusion. We need an official head-scratching smiley. Should it be this :blink: this :huh: or this :wacko:.

I hope she's well-versed. She's what? 45? Asian-American women have the longest life expectancy....over 85 years I'm guessing. White men on average live to 75. She could survive Terry by over 30 years. This is a friendly message from the Sabrespace Amateur Actuarial Society.

I really see all of this as an argument on the margins. Companies over 50 employees have to offer health insurance or pay the ESRP tax payment. The entire argument really ignores the success of the Affordable Care Act. The debate has moved from not whether or not a company has to offer insurance, to what kind of coverage a company has to offer. So the fact Hobby Lobby wants to comply with the law by offering specialized, though limited coverage, shows how much the football has been moved on the whole issue.

Quite a mysogynistic tone here. Not cleaning the building but sitting in on men's meetings. Oh-no. Anyway, she had a pretty good draft and free agency period. :P

I'd just like to suggest that the flattening of face-off stats in the aggregate is a really unhelpful way of coming to your conclusion. Every face-off has context. Some matter more than others. For example. It is a Buffalo home game and the draw is in the Buffalo defensive zone. Boston puts out Bergeron for the draw. If Nolan puts out Ennis for the draw there is probably a 70% chance that Boston wins possession of that draw. For Buffalo just to get to a 50% chance, Buffalo has to put out somebody like Konopka. So Ted Nolan can be calling a hell of game with line-changes against Boston just to stay at 45% FO. But if they don't really matter, and he throws out just anybody, chances are Buffalo gets their ass kicked and runs around all-game. Just an example off of the top of my head, but Face-offs matter IMO much more than you are suggesting. That's why Toews, Crosby, Bergeron, and Kopitar are worth their weight in gold, because they are constantly forcing coaches into poor match-ups because of their face-off ability married to their talent. FWIW I think what probably pushed Samson to the top of the draft class was his face-off ability. We'll see how he does against NHL talent however.

PK shootout to decide outcome at sports highest level. Advantage Stanley Cup.

That's not bad at all as far as prospects go.

Glen Sathers job just got interesting.

I'm happy with Lemieux, but still feel a twinge of pain that Barbeshev was a possibility at 31. But more than that I'm surprised on the Cornel and Karabacek picks. Macinnis Was a possibility as was Mckoweon, and Pollock. I'll trust the scouting department that Cornel and Karabacek have the higher ceilings.