TrueBlueGED

Why disavow a method of analysis that is imperfect? Applying this logic to all methods would leave you literally without a way to evaluate anything. Insofar as I expected him to look like EJ with a better arm during training camp, sure. But preseason performance literally means nothing to me in the grand scheme of things.

Faulk is a good player, but it's likely his reputation exceeds his current level of play. He'd be a clear upgrade on the right side, but I'm not breaking the bank for him.

I don't think he's playing terrible. But even if he was, look at the LB depth chart and tell me there's legitimately a better option at the Mike. There isn't. Kind of like people would rather see Allen take his licks than watch Peterman, I'd rather let Edmunds learn on the fly than sit behind a practice squad caliber player.

????

I mean, I think the Oline is a big problem...but preseason is still preseason and thus should be basically ignored.

Do your friends want additional bets? I'm open for business on these things!

Congratulations in advance on your winnings.

The problem is even if he's healthy, he still isn't good.

Awesome! Maybe seeing McDermott behind the scenes will make me like him more, as I hate his public persona.

Top 5, really well. I think Toronto's next 5 smoke us though. Can definitely change based on the type of seasons our bottom 5 have in the AHL or whatever league they end up in. And looking at this ranking just makes Nylander so heartbreaking. If he could even come close to matching his draft status, we look so much better.

I believe "incompetent" is the word you're looking for here.

So say it was Jim Benning instead, who given his work in Vancouver, wasn't a tank mastermind. He destroyed that team whilst trying to compete. Again, teams end up at the bottom while trying to improve all the time. There's no reason to assume the Sabres wouldn't have been lumped in with them just because they didn't try to tank. Anyway, I would hope (though not necessarily expect) that if we win a Cup in the next 5-10 years, we'll all be too busy celebrating to give a flying F whether or not the tank was the reason.

That's because popular hockey analysis is dumb.

I don't think the floor was lower. Again, more than a few teams have been terrible for extended periods without trying to be. Hell, that was one argument about why the tank was a uniquely Buffalo thing. Now, the likelihood of hitting that floor may have been higher; I'd agree with that. But I would rebut that building around top picks is more likely to reach the ceiling (which, in my mind, is extended Cup contention, not just a single win).

And I agree with pretty much all of this. Which means, of course, it was a good post.

Right, the timeline expectations that came with the tank and from its proponents has certainly flopped. On the other hand... This is a fallacy. Implicit (and in this case, explicit) to much of the criticism of the tank is an assumption that not tanking would have yielded considerably better results, to the tune of playoff success. Maybe. It's possible. But given what we know of Tim Murray's tenure, I don't think there's a good argument out there that he'd have built a competitive team. It's also entirely possible we'd have been at the bottom of the league the good ol fashioned way. When you draft the way the Sabres have for around a decade, misery tends to come regardless.

He's also almost guaranteed to make a GM regret the contract they give him.

Brakes should be pumped on literally everything. Good, bad, or otherwise. It's training camp and preseason. I don't understand how any observer of the NFL for more than 3 microseconds could do any more than a shoulder shrug until the regular season.

I didn't contend the faceoff point, just the defensive play. That said, I never expect Jack to be playing Selle-caliber defense, but I do think he'll get to "okay." Re Kane playing defense, fair enough. The way you wrote it I definitely thought you were connecting the physicality and defense points.

Nope. I can't think of another one either ?

Haven't looked, but it also opens us up to take a bad contract for assets. The Texans gave up a 2nd to get rid of Osweiler. Something like that. Plus, we don't have to use it, can always bank it and roll it over.

You're right that Jack might never be good defensively, but Crosby didn't develop that part of his game by year 3 of his career either. And it's true that Kane is obviously more physical than Skinner, but that doesn't mean he played any defense.

Again, the accuracy got all the hype pre-draft because it was easy to see, but this stuff was always as big (if not bigger) of a problem.

Totally fair. Saying Allen was undraftable were obviously over the top takes. On the other hand, "every flaw is coachable" is a pretty bad take too. But generally, yea, I've said in the past everyone is an idiot when it comes to projecting QBs. Still pretty true.

That's really only true if the only thing you are wowed by is arm strength.