mjd1001

If the injury isn't something long-term....as some others have said it actually might be good for him. Allows him to stay with the team, allows him to watch the Sabres play in person, get coaching from the Sabres coaches, while not necessarily being on the ice all the time. Again, would it be better if he was eligible to go down to Rochester and not be injured? Sure. But without that being an option, him spending extra time with the big club and taking in the culture taking in the coaching, getting used to his potential future teammates may not be all that bad.

The last few years calling and asking for the better deal hasn't worked for me like it has in the past. I've talked to the initial customer service agent, even asked for the retentions department and a lot of times they simply will not give me any kind of promo package if I've had one in the past even years ago. The only thing that worked a couple years ago... After them telling me no... I actually canceled my entire cable package. Kept internet but nothing for TV. About a month later I got a flyer in the mail with a better price. When I called them to verify that's when they gave me the better price. But I actually went without any cable television for a month. That was a couple years ago, so I'm not sure if that's how the handle things now, but it got to the point where they absolutely would not give me a good price no matter who I talk to until I actually canceled.

5 of the 9 games last night were decided in OT or shootout. 2 of the remaining 4 were 1 goal games. 8 of the 9 games had one team that scored exatly 3 goals. Good night if you like close hockey.

Unfortunately I have not. MSG Plus seems to be a mess. You mentioned the price for Spectrum. Pirate feeds I would take a chance on and they tend to be pretty bad also. Just utterly amazing how difficult they can make it to see their product. I have a few smart speakers, one in my office and one in the garage. I USED to be able to ask it to play WGR and listen to the Sabres game over it. Sometime that year that even went away. In the past I was able to be inside the garage listiening to the game (can't get AM radio in there) over my smart speaker, and some genius with the NHL or the Sabres decided to make it even harder to do that.

I'm not picky with my pizza. I'll eat frozen pizza and like it (sometimes a lot). We have a cheap, amazon bought Betty Crocker Pizza maker (its basically a George foreman grill you put a small or medium pizza in) and it works fine for me. Places that offer "brick oven" pizza? Most of the time I hate it...thin burnt crust to me. Today and tomorrow 7-11 is offering Buy one, get one free on their pizzas (bake at home or they put it in there '2 minute' oven in the stores to cook). I'll be getting 2 of them tomorrow. More often than not when we do try pizza from a local place, its different each time, it has too much sauce or too little sauce. Sometimes its burnt, sometimes it isn't. I usually end up saying its simply not worth the $20+ for a large and end up going back to my decent, consistent frozen pizza, or "under $10 large" from Tops or $7 for 2 mediums with jalapenos and one other toping from Dominos.

Thumbs down just for the title of this thread. Dumb nickname.

I just think he was a great D-coordinator, but an average head coach. Average doesn't mean you are bad at everything, it means you are good at some things and bad at others. Maybe 'keeping the team together' was something he was good at, but again, if you look at that roster there was a LOT of turnover, so he didn't really keep it together, and a lot of the key pieces they added were because of Brady, not him. How many interviews have we heard now with former players who said they hated playing for Bellichick, and that the only reason they stated in New England was because of Brady and the chance to win? I don't know the number, but there have been a few of those. If anything, that is another strike against BB. Tony Dungy is another coach who I think was about average. Before he coached Manning, He was 56-46 (including the playoffs) and that was with a Tampa team that many considered to have a good roster (not average). But put him with Manning, he is now 98-33. That is a HUGE difference. Was he a great coach? So maybe we are splitting hairs here, I respect your opinion, and I'm not saying Bellichick was BAD. I just think you could have taken a bunch of other coaches, put them in control of New England, and they would have done just as good. Take some like Andy Reid and put him coaching that New England team over the same time, and I think they would have been even better.

I agree. Sure you can 'change things up' to make it less predictable, but to me your success on the PP is mostly about your talent level and luck. Scheme probably matters a bit, but not as much as many think. The team could use the exact same PP strategy in the next few games and if they score 2-3 more goals, then all will be well with the world. If the PP percentage/success rate drops to the bottom of the league and stays there for a few weeks (or longer), then sure, change things up.

Posted this before, but it probably is worth repeating now. Josh Allen is NOT one of those QB's who can play though an injury without it impacting his game in a very very large way: Last year Josh Allen got hurt in a November game against the Jets. The Bills played 11 games from then until the end of the year, including 2 playoff games. In those 11 games: Team was 8W-3L with 26.9 points per game. Allen completed 60.9% for 2701 yards, 19td, 11ints. In the previous 11 games (including 2 playoff games) before the injury (matching the 11 game number to get the best comparison): Team was 9W-2L with 31.1 points per game. Allen completed 69.4% for 3074 yards, 30td, 6 ints. Since his 'shoulder' injury this year, things look the same.

Don't need to say this again, but here goes. He would be SO much better served if he could be in the NHL. Its not just the step up in competition over Juniors. He could be learning every day from the orgainzations actual coaches, practicing with the guys he will be playing with in a couple years. its so frustrating.

Agree. And every game after that just adds to that feeling. Going .500 at home with the fans is not going to bring anyone back. They need to come close to winning 3 out of every 4 at home over at least a half season for the fans to start to want to come back. Not only have they not done that for years, they are taking further steps back in just the 2 weeks of this season so far.

In football I have a hard time blaming too much on coaching. To me you either have a very bad coach (you get rid of those right away) or you have anything else (the 5th best to the 20th best coaches in the NFL I think are separated by a very thin margin). Its mostly to me, the players and the execution. Bellicheck was an average to below average coach before he got Brady. Then all of a sudden he is the best in the league WITH Brady, and then without Brady he goes back to having a losing record. Is McDermott a bottom 5-10 coach in the league? If he is, you try to replace him. If not, its more of an issue with the players/talent/lack of talent.

Funny thing...as a Buffalo fan, its almost required to hate Philadelphia and Boston Sports teams. For the most part I do. When I watch those teams, I also tend to hate them even more because I cannot stand their fanbases. But, lf all the places I have traveled across this country....Boston is my favorite region to visit. We visited Philly last year for the first time in over 20 years, and we had a great time there also (might be my 2nd favorite city to visit behind Boston). So, hate their sports teams, hate the fanbases, but for me love the cities/regions.

I think the red and black should be worn 50% of the time....not because they win often with them.....but because I just like them better.

I agree. This team is not scoring goals. I posted this in a different thread, but your top 5 goal scorers last year accounted for 177 goals last season (2.15 per GAME). This year those same guys have 3 goals in 4 games (0.75 per game). That is a big difference. Sure, this team makes mistakes in their own end, might get out-hit, lets in a few bad goals, but the drop off in scoring from your top guys from last year to this year (small sample size of course but we ARE talking about the first 4 games) is the main issue. Its not as if scoring is down across the league. There are currently 114 players who are averaging a point-per game this early in the season. Zero of them are Sabres forwards, the only one they have is Dahlin. Again, small sample size, this can change quickly, but that is exactly what has to happen.

I still maintain that if you are a die hard, hard core hockey fan, one who lives and dies with the Sabres and the game of hockey.....then you may now be BEST served by watching the game on Television at home rather than in the arena. Large screen-high def viewing, camera angles that show clearer action/more detail than you can see at most seats in the arena. Replays not on a scoreboard or your phone but on your own big screen. The ability to go on the computer and read instant analysis while loading up replays of plays or goals and viewing them frame-by-frame if you wish. The Arena experience...well, you may or may not have the best view of the game. You have the loud music pumped into the arena, the announcer or scoreboard employing the fans to 'get loud'. More promotions than replays. We all know what it is like. So again, when I really REALLY care about a particular game, that is the game I want to watch at home. By myself, with my laptop next to me or on the big screen but sitting at my desk with my computer already fired up. The day (and I THINK it is coming soon) when you can subscribe to a package and be able to log into an app or website and select whatever camera angle you want...once that happens there will be virtually zero reason for the 'hard core/the game is all that matters' fan to go to the arena. If you want many of us to give up that at-home experience and go to a game, then the 'outside' entertainment better be top notch, not annoying. The seats I sit in better be comfortable, not with cracks in them and with broken cupholders. If I'm going to pay $10+ for food and more for a drink it better be pretty darn good. The 'arena experience' is important. VERY important. People can joke about the cracks in the concrete and the bad sound system or the broken cupholders, but that stuff DOES matter. For many people, they are giving up a little bit of a 'true viewing' experience at home to to to the game, and THOSE things are the difference makers.

Interesting that Girgensons is now 13th all time in Sabres games played and he could break into the top 10 by the end of the year. Girgensons now has more games played as a Sabre than: Hecth Ruff Housley Vanek Shoenfeld McKee Playfair Stafford And of course a lot of others.

Honestly, that is a tough question to answer. To me, a 'star' or 'superstar' doesn't mean you are the best. It means you are close to the best but you are fun to watch. Or you bring a lot of personality to the game. Its kinda a sliding scale. 70% how good you are. 20-25% how exciting to watch. 5%-10% your personality off the ice. Guys like Denis Potvin, Patrice Bergeron, Larry Robinson, Ryan O'Reilly, Chris Chelios, Rod Langway...they were great defensive players, maybe some of the best ever. Some may have been called stars (although as a kid when watching I never heard Langway called a star), but rarely ever have I heard them called 'superstars' because there wasn't much flash to their game. I was only a little kid, really really little, but Bob Gainey may have been just as important to the success of the Canadians of the late 70's as Lafleur and Schutt, but he certainly wasn't called a 'superstar' by most because of the role he played and how he played it. So to me, personally, to be a superstar you must have both Great play AND something that is fun to watch and fans (even casual fans) notice. I understand your point of view, and I can't disagree with it. But to me the difference between a 'star' and a 'superstar' is both the level of how good they are AND a slight bit of how exciting they are to watch (right or wrong, how many highlight real clips of them are there on sportscenter or twitter) On the Sabres, no one at that level yet, Thompson is on the border of it. Around the league, McDavid, McKinnon, Patrick Kane (when he's not hurt), Pastrnak, Kucherov, Ovechkin, Matthews, Maybe Crosby or Makar, and to me Pettersson. Drasaitl? Maybe, but I don't find him exciting to watch. Matthews? Sure, again, not electrifying but he is a great goal scorer. Kaprizov, yes for sure. He's like Pettersson to me, LOVE to watch him play, gets a bit less attention though because he's on a team not in the national spotlight. Matt Tkachuk...he is on the border of superstardom also to me..not flashy, but fun to watch and effective.

My original quote was that he is under-rated. That doesn't mean he is going to be passing Matthews and McDavid for league MVP. Superstar? To me if you are a top 10 scorer in the league AND you are very exciting to watch at the same time, then yes, you are becoming a superstar. I think Pettersson is on that path now for sure.

He's probably not wrong, but the reason this team isn't winning early is not the D play. The top guys aren't scoring. MAYBE part of playing "Team D" is getting the puck out of your zone and giving your forwards more time in the offensive zone, I can see that. But the bottom line is...your top 5 goal scorers last year accounted for over 2 goals per game (on average) and this year they are getting less than 1. The Top line (plus Cozens) score, this team wins more often than not.

Most of us agree on this topic. The team is still in a 'prove it to us' mode. They had a sellout opening night. If they won and put up 5+ goals I'm pretty sure that would have helped the attendance the next couple games. That didn't happen though. This team needs to be in playoff contention all the time. The WORST case scenario for fans wanting to see this team is for them to, after a week or two into the season, for them to be near the bottom of the standings looking up, AND not scoring. They are 2 for 2 on both of those. They can't be 'chasing' in the standings. if they were to make the playoffs with 100 points, for attendance you want them to start fast and maybe fade a bit to get to those 100 points rather than start slow and catch up at the end. They have played 4 games of average/boring/low scoring hockey were they have been playing mostly from behind. They need to play the next 4 games of high scoring/playing with the lead, mostly winning just to for the fans to get back to the excitement they had before the opener.

What can you change? You just have to keep going with it. MAYBE you shuffle the top 2 lines. People can blame coaching. They can blame Clifton making mistakes. People can say you should have gotten a better Vet goaltender. The team is starting out bad and people will pick their own agenda and blame what they want to for this but I see this as primarily one reason they are starting out slow: Your top guys aren't scoring. Last your your top 5 goal scorers (Thompson, Tuch, Skinner, Cozens, and Olofsson) had 177 goals. This year through 4 games they have a total of 3 among them. If they were producing at the same 'rate' as last year, they would have close to 9. To me thats not really coaching, thats not your D-man play, that isn't goaltending. That is your top guys needing to get going. Your top 5 goal scorers are 'pacing' about 6 goals short of expectations collectively. If they even had HALF of that back, you'd likely be 2-2 or 3-1. You aren't playing Olofsson, but get the other guys going. That is all this team needs right now.

if it comes with offense, sure. I'll take 2-2 in one period over a 0-0 defensive battle.

I don't know if this will last, or if they will win. They have some bad play this period but we are seeing goals. 4 goals in one period, that is the hockey I miss from last year.

One can make the case that the Sabres played pretty well last game, but we are now in game 4 and how many periods have they dominated? Or if not dominated, but were what you would call very good? Almost 10 periods into the season, I'd say they have 1 very good period, 2 kinda good, and at least 3-4 that are awful.