mjd1001

We are now closing on on being 3/4 of the way through the season, so I thought I'd look at some simple projections based on where certain players (and the team) is based on a full 82 game season projection: -The team is on pace for 73 points (They had 54 last year). They are on pace to be a -40 in goal differential (they were a -113 last year) As for individual players 'pace' based on what they have done so far projected over a full 82 game season: O'Rielly 25 goals, 44 assists, 69 points Eichel 23 goals, 31 assists, 54 points Ristolainen 12 goals, 37 assists, 49 points McGinn 18 goals, 19 assists, 37 points Reinhart 25 goals, 12 assists, 37 points Foligno 10 goals, 13 assists, 23 points Moulson 6 goals, 13 assists, 19 points Girgensons 9 goals, 11 assists, 20 points So, Foligno is what he is now...but is he good enough that you want him to stick around as a 3rd line winger? Most want McGinn back, and I agree. However, is he worth paying $3.5 - $4 Million a year..especially when he is likely to move down a line in the next year or two...maybe giving him less production? Moulson is going to get bought out, Right?? Is Girgensons just having an 'off year'? Is he a 8-10 goal scorer? 15? or should we eventually expect 20 out of him?

I know a bit off topic, but speaking or rink size...and about what is wrong with the game "players getting too big and too fast" check out this article that is almost 30 YEARS OLD where people were saying the same things as they are today: Full article here: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-10-18/sports/8703190117_1_hard-checks-and-fights-bigger-rink-nhl-fans Some interesting parts of it: (remember, this was from 1987, there are some quotes from Sabres coach Ted Sator: NEW YORK — Mark Messier says the evolution of National Hockey League players has rendered the league`s rinks obsolete. ``The NHL doesn`t have any choice but to go to a bigger ice surface, and I feel the sooner the better,`` the Edmonton Oilers center said. ``The game is just too fast now, and the players are too big.``It`s like a pinball game out there. You`d see a lot better hockey on a bigger rink, and the fans would enjoy it more. There would be more of the skill-control game. Players are getting hurt too often on the small ice surface.` The only elements of the game that draw as much fan reaction as goals are hard checks and fights. The league has been slow to institute measures to curb fighting, so why should it want to reduce collisions? ``I think you see better hockey on smaller rinks,`` Boston Bruins General Manager Harry Sinden said. ``You see more contact. A lot more. You see a lot more goal-mouth action and not nearly as much open-ice play, which creates a different game.`` ``In my opinion, NHL fans would be bored to death by Christmas,`` Sinden said of watching games on larger rinks. ``Having gone over there (Europe) and watched a number of games, that`s exactly what happened to me. Occasionally, if the Soviets are playing, you`ll see a hell of a game, but to try to watch that kind of hockey for two weeks, you`d be bored to death.`` Bobby Clarke, who played for and now is general manager of the Philadelphia Flyers, agrees with Sinden. As a player, Clarke made a living mucking in the corners. ``If you`ve ever watched European hockey, it`s boring hockey,`` Clarke said. ``Nothing happens. There`s very few shots on net, and there`s a lot of fooling around in midzones. ``My feeling is that we could make the midzones smaller and bring the goal line out farther and not have offsides for a two-line pass. That might open it up some.``

What I wish we could see in the NHL that we had back in the 1990's and earlier.....different sized rinks. Remember Montreal had a really big surface compared to Buffalo, Boston and Chicago? In baseball we have different size and shaped parks..and we USED to in Hockey. Maybe it would help scoring...when teams played in different rinks...everything wouldn't be 'standard', maybe coaching 'systems' would have to be tweaked or wouldn't be as 'perfect' as they are now. Players would rely on skill more and less on 'positioning'...and maybe it would just lead to a better game with more scoring?

I don't really want him that much. The most I would do is Ennis and a 2nd...but I don't think that would be enough for Tampa.

I'm O.K. with Dunleavy. If he took over for RJ full time next year, I'd be fine with it.

I know it is unpopular to say, but I agree with you. I care 95% less about a fight in hockey now than I did in the past. If I could see 1-2 more goals per game, I would EASILY give up all fighting in hockey. On those rare occasions we do see a game with more 6 or 7 (or more) goals that is a back-and-forth game...I never walk away from a game like that and wish for more fights. I just want to see more goals. Any lack of interest in the NHL that I have...any game I turn off early is not due to the lack of fighting, it is due to the lack of scoring.

I think not Malkin. I watch a handful of Penguins games each year, and to my eyes, he LOOKS like the best player on the team. The Penguins have a better record WITH Malkin and Without Crosby then they do when Malkin misses games but Crosby is there. So with those 2 things together, I find it hard to argue that Crosby is THAT much better than Malkin...they in terms of public perception...Malkin is much under-rated compared to Crosby. With that in mind, I think I'd have to throw out Crosby as the most over-rated. Why? I listen to a lot of Canadian radio, and still watch HNIC most of the time..and they still talk about him as he is CLEARLY the best player in the league by a LOT, and he is one of the best players of all time..but: -He has won ONE cup...did it on a team with multiple other high draft picks, and had to take 7 games to beat Detroit for that cup and had some very favorable officiating to beat Ovechkin and the Caps in 7 games before that. -It looks doubtful he will even sniff 500 goals in his career. He'd need to average 30 goals per year, ever year, for the next 6 years to get there. I'm not sure hes able to do that. -As mentioned above, the Pens have a better record with only Malkin in the lineup than they do with only Crosby. Does that mean Crosby isn't a great player with a great career? No, it doesn't. But in terms of people saying he is one of the greatest every, that he dominated the NHL, and even today there is no question he is the most dominating player in the game (Yes, I have heard people on 590 out of Toronto say that even in 2014 and 2015)..that qualifies to me as a great player who is still vastly over-rated.

I agree with the premise of this thread. In the past I went to a handful of games every year (sometimes even more), but I don't anymore. -I don't like the game as much. The NHL can say low scoring games with end-to-end action are great, but I like SCORING. Give me goals. Period. -Experience at home is a lot better. Growing up, we watched standard def games on a 19 or 25 inch TV (at best). Now, high def games in the living room on the 55 or 65" screen is great for most people. -They are too expensive. If the game wasn't on TV, or if we were watching it on a crappy small TV, I'd want to go in person...but for many of us, the increased cost of the game does not justify the experience vs watching at home. -Others have made a point I kinda agree with. It seems the games these days is less about going to it to watch the game...and more about 'a thing to do'. You are getting less "hard core" fans that only care about the game and team...and more people who are casual fans who are going to hang out at the bar....or leave early if the team is losing...of talk to those they go to the game with about topics other than hockey. Those customers bring in more revenue, but they don't always add much to the game experience. -I do think the Arena is fine, but compared to other new ones around the league, it is average at best.

I don't think he overpayed for most of the deals. Look at what was given up, nothing that we can say we really regret so far. What this team needs is ANOTHER top 5 pick this year. A lot (not all, but most) of the teams that get really good when they are young don't do it with just 2 "top 2" picks of their own that they develop...it takes 3 or 4 high level picks. The Panthers have taken 4 'top 5' picks in the last 5 years. I don't think I need to tell anyone how many tops picks Edmonton has. Tampa has 4 "top 6" picks in the last 7 years. Chicago, L.A., Pittsburgh...all has multiple high top 5 or top 10 picks leading up to the time they competed for the Cup. Once more year of picking high (hopefully top 5) for the Sabres, and I think they will be good. Just hope Murray doesn't trade away this coming top pick.

I really didn't like the movie too much. Was it entertaining? Sure...but WAY too many plot holes and we left the theater thinking saying "that just doesn't make sense" about too many things. I would expect the 'fans' and general 'movie-goes' to really like the move and it to get a 90%+ approval rating from them....it is that kind of movie. However, I do not get the 'critical reviews' from around the country where it is getting 90%+ positive reviews from the critics.

I'm going to disagree on who is going to be better, at least with the opinion so far. I think long run, Jones will be a more valuable player. Is that a guarantee? of course not. But, Jones is only 21 and already very good. He has the tools to be great, or elite (Norris trophy caliber). Odds say he is going to get better, and there is a chance he can be a guy that can have an impact on the game at a Doughty/Keith/Weber/Hedman level. I'm not saying it is happening for sure, but if you made me bet, I'd say Jones will be in that class rather than not be there in a few years. As far as Johanson...could HE be elite? Sure, but I think there is less of a chance of it. He's played in the NHL (at least partial seasons) now for 5 years..and has one 30 goal year. Last year was 26..so that is good, not elite. Overall, I think Jones, even as a D-man, has a much better chance of being a game-changing player (25+ minute, shut down #1) over Johnason (20-30 a year goal guy, not exactly captain material).

I said over and over in my post that they don't NEED a new arena...the old one is fine and probably will be just 100% functional for years to come. It MAY not even have a negative impact on how loud the crowd is. But not needing one doesn't change the fact that in terms of how 'nice' it is...how much 'fun' it is going to it....the overall comforts and things it supplies....it is now middle of the road at best compared to the NHL at best..and within 5 years its going to be a lot closer to the bottom than the top. No, they don't NEED one, but if you want an overall experience equal to or better than when you go to many other arenas..it is falling short....and if you don't want to read articles from out-of-towners saying the arena isn't up to the standard set by many other arenas...then you'll want a new one.

Probably middle of the pack, at best. In Boston or NY, you are in (or very close to) th bustling parts of the city. Columbus has one of the nicest areas near the arena, I think they call it the "Arena District". Much more to do there than in Buffalo. Nashville has theirs in downtown, 5 minute walk from Broadway, their entertainment district. The ACC in Toronto is in a great location. In Minnesota, when I was there the area wasn't surrounded by an entertainment district across the street, but is only a block or two from the river, and musuem..and in a pretty nice setting. Once again, Are there places like you mentioned worse than Buffalo? Sure, but there are a LOT of places with newer, nicer Arenas than Buffalo inn nicer areas. Buffalo is mid-pack at best...Buffalo is mid-pack at best and as every year goes by it is getting worse.

I'm not a big fan of the building itself. When it was brand new I thought it was 'nice', but nothing special. The place is soon to be approaching 20 years old. It is now below average as an arena. Does it doe its job just fine? Sure, but from the outisde it is bland, inside it is a step or two below some other places I have been in (Columbus, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Minnesota, Toronto, and Nashville...in the last 5-8 years). Do the Sabres NEED a new Arena? Of course not...but in just another 3-5 years..the place is going to still be 100% fine for its job, but will really be starting to show its age in terms of comparing it to other typical NHL arenas. Even with that said, If Buffalo had a brand new Arena that was as nice as anywhere else in the league, I'm not sure how often I'd go to a game. I'm perfectly happy watching the game from home....being in the Arena doesn't bring much more enjoyment to me BUT it DOES bring a lot more expense and hassle.

It never gets brought up, but I think Portland,OR would be a good market for the NFL. They are in Seattle's television market, but the two cities are 3-4 hours apart (depending on traffic). That isn't much closer than Buffalo is to Albany. They are a mid sized city (I'm guessing 1.5 to 2 times the metro population of Buffalo), and only have an NBA team as competition (no MLB, NHL, or NFL teams now....and good, but not great, college programs in the area.)

I like Dunleavy. Is he as good as a 1995-2005 version of Rick Jeanneret? Nope. But to me, I'm just as happy hearing Dunleavy as I am the 2015 version of Rick.

I"m serious when I ask this...I'm looking for opinions. When listening to the radio (sometimes 590 out of Toronto), and watching national games (many of Hockey Night in Canada), the prevailing opinion is Carey Price is the best goalie in the world, hands down, not even a debate. I'm not saying he isn't one of the best, or even the best, but why do so many 'experts' make it sound like it is slam dunk, no discussion needed? When comparing Price to Lundqvist, Price's GAA for his career is lower than Lundqvist. Last year is GAA was better, but over the past 5 years combined (recent history), Lundqvist is better. Lundqvist has a better GAA in the playoffs, both career and in the past few seasons. Both of them have taken their teams pretty far in the playoffs, but not won the cup. Even if you look at Save percentage, Lundqvist is slightly higher for the career, and if you just look at the last 4-5 years...he is better there overall. Once again, If someone tells me they think Price is better, I'm not going to call them a liar and argue...I just want to know why so many 'experts' I hear on the radio and TV say Price is better, hands down without a discussion? Is it just because a lot of the Hockey press is Canadaian, and so is Price?

Probably because there isn't a mass "race to the bottom" like there was last year. Sabres are close to the bottom of the league...that is true...but even where they are now...they are on a 'pace' for 76 points...last year they had 54 for the entire year.

Interesting point. Maybe or maybe not just the city, but how about simply the fanbase? I wish it was possible (just for fun) to see the average age of ticketbuyer for each NHL city to compare that.

I'd like Lehner to come back and become the main 'starter'. If he lasts through the end of the year without injuries, I think he'll get batter as the season goes on. I'd also like to see Ullmark go back to Rochester and see 50-60% of the starts there. Next year, Chad Johnson will likely move on, and then you make a decision of which of the 'younger' guys from Rochester you want as your primary backup to Lehner for the next 1-2 seasons....WITH that backup getting a legit 30 starts, and Lehner getting 50 or so...unless Lehner turns into a star.

I usually go to see the comic/book inspired movies, but as more and more sequels come out, I am less interested. I like them better when there is 'time off' from a theme, or a re-launch of it. I loved the First Iron Man movie...the sequels not so much. To me the best part about any movie like this is to see the 'introduction' of a character...or to see characters 'together' for the first time. I'll still probably see most of these movies, just after the first 1 or 2, I kinda need a break from the concept to enjoy them the most.

The surface pro 3 should be able to handle everything you use it for pretty easily. For basic stuff, no game playing....the most processor you will need is an i3...and not even a current gen. I wouldn't bother to pay anything more for an i5 or i7. You might even be able to get away with a cheaper Pentium (but don't go celeron). My computer has an i5, but the wifes new one is a Pentium, and with the SSD is is super fast for what she does (email, web browsing, word processing, excel docs, etc.) The only thing you really should get is a SSD drive. As long as you aren't playing games or doing serious editing on it...the SSD is the one single thing that will speed up your computer the most. As far as a screen goes...1080 resolution is the sweet spot. You can get away with a lower res screen, but the 1080 will look good. Anything over 1080 would be overkill for what you are working on. One other thing to think about is if the screen is glossy or matte. Most are glossy, but I looked for a matte screen for my last laptop and finally found one. If you are going to be using it where there might be some reflections, you may want to find a matte screen.

Maybe with coaching getting more and more involved (more coaches per team than a couple decades ago, great use of analytics helps coaching).....well, scoring is down because of 'better' or 'more complete' coaching. I have heard something a few times on the radio (once or twice on WGR and a few times on 590 out of Toronto)....you can't teach offensive talent, but you CAN teach/coach defense.

26 regulation goals scored last night by a total of 14 teams...under 2 per team for the night. According to the latest stats, we are down to 2.65 goals per game for the year so far. That is the lowest in almost 15 years. It is also the greatest drop from one season to the next since 06-07 to 07-08 (not only is scoring bad, but it is getting worse at an increasing rate). The thing is....shots per game haven't changed all that much over the years....very close to 30 per game per team...it is goalies save percentages that are much higher. Is that a function of the goalies being too good or too much equipment (bigger nets needed)? or is it more a function of the quality of shots being a lot worse (coaching and D-zone play?)

As of this morning, Toronto is tied with the Sabres in points for last in the division (albeit with 1 more game played) Also, they have a better goal differential. (Sabres are -9, Toronto is a -8) Toronto is even playing better lately, winning 6 of their last 10, and 4 of their last 5, in the last 10 games, 2 of those wins are against Dallas and one at Nashville. I'd say that Buffalo has had a much harder schedule, but with TO coming away beating Dallas twice (once on the road) and at Nashville, I'm not sure. So is Toronto on a 'hot streak' that is likely to end? Or are these 2 teams very close and are likely to be neck-and-neck in the standings all year? Or is Toronto improving so quicklly they are going to be better than the Sabres this year?