Randall Flagg

The positive vibes from the netminding duo, the positive vibes from Sheary, Skinner, Berglund (who could have been had for Justin Bailey without a doubt, from a GM who had been trying actively to dump the contract for a calendar year before the trade) would absolutely f*cking not have been suppressed by a guy who WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AS SAD with a team actually worth something around him, because winning isn't as bad as losing. I'm serious - if I would have known the stink that one freaking milquetoast quote from one goddamn interview would have caused, I would have just stepped away from the internet the second it happened.

This is surface analysis though, and it does nothing for me. There must be something wrong with McDavid because Edmonton is so bad, right? Hockey is always a team game, until some narrative pops out, and then everyone loses the plot. You're aware that if you go to anything that gets measured ont he ice, and click to the bottom of the 700 NHL players in the league, you see about six players that got regular minutes for this team last year, right? Bad players playing a lot of minutes does so much more than one player, who was actually liked given all available evidence (like things Jack says off-the-cuff in chill interviews during the summer) having a "vortex of sadness" that's a mild version of the one that almost killed their goalie who a.) played a position of much more importance b.) was SO MUCH WORSE at that job than ROR was at his And like I said, something tells me ROR's post-game interviews aren't overpowering his over-point-per-game scoring from their center spot, the highest they've had from a center in years, when you look at the worst starting goalie in the league behind him. Like, if we have this same discussion, but switch ROR with Chad Johnson, we're actually getting somewhere that represents reality.

If you think the subtraction of ROR (and replacing him with 23 games, 2 non-empty-net points, 3 points total, and about 5 healthy-scratches) has something to do with the team's effort and winning this game (in October last year he willed them back down from 3 goals at Boston to win in it in OT off of his ferocious effort, a much better team than any they've beaten so far), and that it's the absence of his sadness that let them do so, and not the absence of ALL of Matt Tennyson, Justin Falk, Josh Gorges, Lehner/Johnson, Seth Griffith, Matt Moulson, Jordan Nolan, Zemgus&Larsson surrounded and affected by those guys, and lifeless-leg version of Pominville over the players playing the way they are now who were all in the lineup at the same time in our first ten games last year and obviously the reason we were bad considering ROR was one of two players on the team to elevate their linemates' overall hockey abilities offensively and defensively, and one of two to win the important shot share/expected goal battles, and that the presence of ROR in St. Louis that's dragging them down (I've watched some of their hockey and he's been even better than I've ever seen him here, which is probably something to do with not breaking defensive usage records and playing with Tarasenko) over Jake Allen's .876 save percentage on the year, and continue to harp this toxicity and "vortex of sadness" while blatantly ignoring the guy who had those same traits to a degree that he almost f*cking died last year because that guy gave you a story and this guy gives you an out to not bash on your buddies, I don't respect your hockey opinions and you're probably John Vogl, who has shown laughable analysis despite writing some nice pieces about things that aren't on the ice. To be clear, i"m not calling anybody here out. This was spurred by a couple of posts but taken to this degree when remembering all the trash Vogl has said Every single one of the reasons we have a good start this year was on the roster last year or acquired in different deals. Every single one. As we start playing Atlantic division opponents more, I'm going to get worried about the Sobotka-Tavares, Sobotka-Trocheck, Sobotka-Point, Sobotka-Boston etc. matchups, because that is where our weakness is going to stink the most, which is why I'm exploring the phones if I'm JB today.

I felt hockey-related emotions I hadn't felt in at least 7 years tonight. It was like an old friend from early high school stopped in to say hi. Going to have to get the dust off of a couple other ones as well. Some of them aren't as nice. I forgot how much I don't like the teams in our division.

If he never developed another ounce, he'd be an incredibly reliable second pairing D-man, good for 30 points every year, with a keen and invaluable ability to flip the ice and kick-start transition, as well as being a reliable safety valve in the offensive zone. and he's 18 and has 10 games of experience

6 ROWs in our first 10 games.

I'm in. Which is why I emphatically want some sort of move. Nothing dumb and big like the sens and Duchene last year, but I'm still worried about sustainability of non-Jeff-or-Jack-created ES scoring. These guys have shown they deserve some backing and attention to their weaknesses.

I've been here since January 2012. The Sabres have never had a record, or feeling about them, like this, in that entire time. I'm excited for THIS place and YOU people as much as I am for the team.

I'd start Linus Saturday.

Right?? I'd kill for this team to make my stress-induced digestive problems twice as bad. This will be the second night this season that has happened. Bring it on.

Absolutely thrilling. That was a game we haven't seen in a decade, eh friends? The "now it's time to prove it" game, going like THAT?? The whipping boys are playing their hearts out. The weak links are the guys who are normally dependable and should round into form soon. (Looking at you Scandy) Hutton scared me a bit tonight. If I'm the GM, the team showed me enough tonight that I'm calling around and looking for another center that can add some ES scoring and dependable play. Not to force anyone to sit, but when injuries hit, depth helps everything, and we can take a load off of Sobotka and help Reinhart/Sheary out a bit.

In an 82 game season it takes more than two games to show that you're ready for the biggest leap of job expectations and intense scrutiny you've ever experienced in your career.

It's astounding because it leads to all kinds of contradictions. They got blown out 5-1 in San Jose, but practiced the day before. If that's "all the evidence we need" to confidently assert it lead to their loss in Boston, then it is inexplicable that we lost to SJ by the same margin. Your logic implodes on itself days later, because in reality, so many millions of things go into who wins and loses any hockey game, and most of them happen during the game itself on the ice, aided by years of individual skill development all thrown together in a beautiful chaos on ice, and one single goddamn practice after an entire month of intense practice and training camp cannot reasonably be considered the difference, otherwise their wins in the days since with NO practice couldn't have happened with that level of evidence being "all we need," and that loss to SJ couldn't have happened. That's the reason I came in here to have some fun - it is as reasonable (ie, unquantifiable, and not reasonable) to suggest that the team-building they did instead brought them closer together and had a much longer lasting positive effect than one single on-ice session, leading to the only two positive Octobers we've had in near a decade. There's AS MUCH evidence for this suggestion as for yours, as we're both right that the team LOST games after but were broadly BETTER those Octobers, but both lead to obvious logical problems, and both are absurd, only the difference is I'm just messing around You couldn't even find a gender studies department that would advocate publishing that as evidence

That's absolutely not evidence. In fact, your assertion that it is is astounding.

What are the losses the other years? (Hint, there were no wins) Thus, it appears that any negative immediate effects are drowned out by overwhelming benefit mere days and weeks after, and thus on balance it's clearly worth it. A tank move to not, even.

Between the 8-8-2 start in 15-16, and 5-4-0 now, the two seasons that we've canceled practice the day before the seasons have spurred by FAR the best early results we've had in the last 7 or 8 seasons. There is no comparison. It is IMPERATIVE that we cancel practice the day before the season every single year. I, as a paying consumer, will not stand for anything less, as it would be gross negligence and indicate that we really aren't doing everything it takes to have success on the ice. Thank freaking god that Phil decided to do that.

Right, the players don't sit and watch his bench and interview demeanor. They deal with him in practice and behind closed doors in the locker room, which from all indications has not been "soft" treatment. What coaches actually still do the tired old rah rah interview ranting that doesn't serve any purpose but to satisfy some fans? Torts maybe?

I've never understood how the Housley-coaches-soft narrative came over from his supposed playing style. All evidence suggests he has rigorous practices and is pretty hard on these guys

Is this his annual October severe jock itch?

That's some juicy center depth Jack, staying healthy is the most important thing you could do

Kyrie also thinks the Earth is flat so nothing he ever says will tilt my opinion of Lebron

How could this be? Our players are fundamentally different on a mental and cultural level now

Useless stat time, because I like "paces." In the last half-season's worth of games, 41, McDavid is scoring at a 137 point pace.

I looked this up like a week ago. Most seasons were normal, but there were 1 or 2 where we would go like 13-2 or something with him in, despite being mediocre otherwise. I don't recall the details though and am not doing that again lol

That wasn't MNF though. That was when the blizzard hit and they had to move the game to Detroit.