TrueBlueGED

Seems pretty obvious to me.

Nonsense.

This can be said about basically every player ever with the possible exception of 05-08 Ovechkin. Players pace themselves. I think it might be more noticeable for Eichel because when he's not playing that way, he doesn't have the elite hockey sense to still be effective. His skating and physical tools are what make him an offensive force, so when those aren't going 100% it really shows. But that they're not always going 100% is pretty normal for a player.

Why does it always have to be tied to effort? Maybe he just isn't as good due to a lesser hockey sense?

Now imagine, just for a moment, how much more you could get done before the game with an extra 4 hours. Which would also have the happy side effect of allowing more people to watch it.

Aaron Schatz ?‏Verified account @FO_ASchatz 13m13 minutes ago More The 2018 Buffalo Bills now have a top 10 defense in DVOA... and one of the five worst offenses we've ever tracked through 5 games.

I mean, both EJ and Tyrod had pretty considerably better starts to their Bills careers. Doesn't mean Allen will forever be bad, but right now, he's awful.

At this point, he's JAG. I thought Nylander outplayed him in the preseason.

I don't think I make it to a game this year, but this is a great idea. Kudos.

There have been some ebbs and flows, but yea, at least since the Depression (and arguably before), the expansion of executive power is one of the primary themes of American politics. And given the current geographic polarization of the parties, I'd argue there is only meaningful checks and balances today during times of divided government. Of course, divided government also makes lawmaking almost impossible because of that very same geographic polarization. Absent party coalitions changing, I don't see this reality shifting much. And make no mistake, party coalitions will change. It's just a question of how long it takes.

I'd be shocked if Roe is directly and explicitly overturned, a la Brown overturning Plessy. What is far more likely is that the Court just interprets "undue burden" extremely loosely and lets states restrict abortion access as to make it de facto illegal.

I'm the 90s, Brett Kavanaugh was part of a team trying to get enough on Clinton for an indictment. When working in the Bush White House, he authored memos on why the president can't be indicted. He as asked why during his confirmation hearing. His response as to why he changed? 9/11. That's not even loosely constitutionalist, let alone rigidly. I think what drives me up a wall whenever the courts come up is the delusion that conservative judges don't legislate from the bench, and that somehow they are immutable robots who have a superhuman ability to keep their own political views out of their jurisprudence. It's important to recognize there are no textualists on the Court. Even the most conservative can best be characterized as originalists, but as soon as you move away from what the Constitution literally says, any attempt to interpret intent is filled with politics.

That third line is probably a disaster, but I think the top two are the best configuration we can have at the moment.

Because they're vastly different competencies.

Nah, O'Reilly's negative attitude is so strong it transcends state lines and whole organizations.

I believe all he's saying is he's afraid Botterill misidentified the problem with the team as the locker room, rather than the talent level. Much as fans are prone to do. Hence the shuffling of deck chairs rather than upgrading the chairs.

Because Housley canceled practice. Obviously.

Fair enough, you've certainly looked more directly at it than I have. We're on the same page with him being who is is at this point, at least.

Either way, after 347 NHL games, I'm not expecting it to change.

This is a truly depressing thought, but not overly surprising. It's what most of the professional hockey world grew up with, and worked in, right?

Wasn't he? We literally cannot know. A big part of me thinks the high hopes when he first started in the NHL were simply a product of comparing him to Tyson Strachan. Sort of like quarterbacks and throwing with anticipation, I don't think hockey sense and vision are things that are really developed.

This offseason and the discussions after game 1 are doing nothing to dissuade me from my theory that literally everything is easier for fans to do than admit the players aren't very good. It'll be grit, compete, "the room," coaching, the owner, the fans, or the shape of the arena roof. Anything and everything before "these guys aren't very good" is accepted.

I feel like I've said it a million times, but when you go an entire decade with Jake McCabe being your best non-top-10 draft pick, you're going to be a pretty bad hockey team, irrespective of anything and everything else you do.

Turnover doesn't imply improvement, merely attempted improvement. Isn't that what Berglund was supposed to do? I feel like I spent all summer hearing how he was just going to take O'Reilly's defensive responsibilities.

If nothing else, thanks for the quick quote so I could catch my poor grammar.