TrueBlueGED

McCoy was a crappy head coach, but he was pretty damn good as an OC. I like it.

Two reasons, for me: 1) I have little faith in these trends to continue 2) I'm doubtful the money makes sense when his contract is up

Hopefully they're both back in Rochester for the next game where they belong :angel:

First time all year? I'm not sure if I'm joking.

:)

Me too, and I love that he can slot up and down the lineup and add value (not that he's my ideal top line winger, but I think you know what I'm saying).

And at your age, probably many others :p

That was a pretty great play by Kane to dig it out of his skates and get the shot off. He's still dead to me.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie 9m9 minutes ago TOR claims Curtis McElhinney from CBJ. Derek Grant (BUF) on waivers. Fiiiiiiiiinally. Now we just need to show Des the same door.

I was gonna go with Flacco here :nana: More to the point, what I'm getting tired of is the incessant downplaying of either how important everything else is, or how difficult it actually is to fill out a quality roster even if you have a great QB. We can agree that we'd love to have Matt Ryan here, right? Well the three seasons prior to this one, the Falcons went 4-12, 6-10, 8-8...aka, worse than the Bills. That's with a franchise QB. When I said "run of the mill" great, I mean along the lines of Ryan, or Brees...not all-timers like Manning or Brady or Rodgers. What I think many fans are guilty of is looking at what those three can compensate for, and projecting that onto other QBs who, though great, are decidedly a step or two back.

But you can't properly assess three different QBs at the same time. I completely disagree with this. Now, if you want to say everything else is easier to find than a great QB, then yea, sure. I continue to think that living in the era of Manning/Brady/Rodgers has poisoned us into thinking that a QB fixes everything. No. One of the best QBs of all time fixes everything, but your "run of the mill" great QB? Far from it.

Somebody is still hungover from staying out too late for the game last night.

I dunno, at least to this point he's been hugely polarizing as an NFL prospect. Before this game I'd have been shocked if he wasn't there for us to take.

That was one of the best football games I've ever seen. And this. Definitely this.

This is true. Though, they won't be winning anything as long as they remain committed to Bortles.

Chad Kelly reminds me a lot of Kirk Cousins, stylistically. Not afraid to air it out, but as likely to throw you out of a game as into it, and though he throws a catchable ball, his ball placement is erratic. Take away the last name, and nobody in Buffalo is pining for him as the guy to draft. Give me Kizer or give me death. Okay, fine, I'll take Watson over death.

Two things. 1) My comment was referring to how fans/media label players, not meant to mean that no players add defensive value. I think there's a tendency to label any and all defensemen who don't contribute offensively as defensive defensemen, without any actual evaluation of their defensive game. 2) Research has been done on this, and there has been no reputable finding that a defenseman can reliably, consistently, and repeatedly impact the save percentage of his goaltender. There are a few people like Dave Johnson who thinks they can, but they're basically the climate change deniers of the analytics community. This is a major reason there's such a focus on possession*, and before anyone asks, part of this is difficulty in attributing the save percentage of a goalie to one of five skaters on the ice, combined with how naturally variable save percentage itself is and how infrequent goals are. *When analytics types talk about possession, what they really mean is the aggregate of shot generation and shot suppression. There is evidence individual defensemen are better shot suppressors than others, but zilch had been found on the save percentage front. So if we're looking for defensive value, on-ice shot attempts against is the way to go with our current evidence. I think this makes some sense--you'd think a defenseman who has quality gap control and positioning would be on the ice for fewer shots against. Stats like this get referred to as "microstats" and there's a lot of it out there, much if it snake oil (the Oilers have used some of it to justify Kris Russell's value, even though the end results are terrible), but some are doing well with it. Ryan Stimson at hockey-graphs.com is a solid writer who has delved into the field. Anyway,even if a player adds defensive value, that doesn't inherently mean they generate actual value if they're a black hole offensively. If a Dman has legitimate in-zone defensive value, but spends 75% of his time there, is that actually a net benefit? I think no. (Hi Gorges!)

Marner would not have 32 points in 39 games playing for Bylsma, of that I am confident.

I still think he's got wheels. In fact, I think his skating is why he's still an effective even strength scorer.

At their respective peaks, Derek Roy was twice the player Ennis was. Roy had plenty of annoying tendencies (as does Ennis), but he was a 70 point player. Ennis has never broken 50. Sadly, Roy was never the same after his quad injury. That said, I still think Ennis can be a useful player. Let him captain the 4th line and 2nd PP unit, adding some much needed depth scoring.

Gionta will definitely attract attention from buyers. Think he'd be a nice fit in Pittsburgh.

All you nacho-hating heathens should be required to buy the rest of us nachos at the Sabrespace meetup. No, I don't have a logical reason why, but you need to be punished for your insolence somehow.

Another example of luck: the Cowboys were going to draft Connor Cook, but Oakland snagged him. The result? Dallas drafts Dak Prescott.

Antonio Brown: 50 yard TD on a bubble screen. Let's not even try with Sammy though.

That's not a bad opinion. It's wrong, but it's not bad. It's the disparagement of arena nachos that cannot, and will not, be tolerated.