mjd1001

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?

There are 3 things I really didn't expect so far this season. 1. Just how much fighting is down. The Sabres have 3 fights all year so far. Teams like Pittsburgh, Montreal, and Detroit only have 1 fight all year. The Sabres are on a "pace" for 13 fights this year. For comparison, they had 33 last year and 36 the year before. Go back to the mid 1990's, and they would have over 100 (or close to 100) a year. 2. Ryan O'Reilly. Before the Sabres traded for him, I wasn't that high on him. I thought he was a 'good' player, but by no means someone I would want to pay more than 4.5 to 5 million a year for. So far, it looks like I'm very wrong. On pace for almost 30 goals and 40 assists, and averaging close to 22 minutes per game. He is playing really really well. 3. Sidney Crosby. This isn't a week or two slump anymore...what is going on? On his own team, Malkin has almost double the points that Crosby has. Hes on pace for 9 goals and 37 assists. If this was 7-8 games into the year, I'd say give him time, but something is up. I haven't really seen him play alot, has anyone watched a few Pitt games...and they can comment on what he LOOKS like out there? For anyone who wants to know where the Sabres stand with the math so far this year, they are on pace for 77 points, 187 goals for, 223 goals allowed. Last year, they finished with 54 points, 161 goals scored, 274 goals allowed.

This seems to be a topic that won't go away. 1. Goalie equipment can still be reduced a bit. No need for bigger nets if you do that. 2. As everyone seems to be saying CALL THE PENALTIES the way the rulebook states. Not just for the added powerplays, but to take away some of the stuff that clogs up the O-zone. 3. I'd be open to hearing a rule about not allowing players to leave their skates to block a shot. What to block it? Do it standing up. This one has some pretty big questions with it, so I'd like to see it tried in the AHL or preseason, but I'm intersted for sure. 4. I heard recently the idea of not allowing the Defensive team to ice the puck when shorthanded. I'm all for that. If not pure icing, at least make them carry the puck past the blue line (out of the zone) before they slap it down the ice.

The problem is that you can go back and check offsides WELL after the play progresses. You want to get it right? find a way to put sensors into the boards along the blue lines...or have someone make a decision within a couple seconds and buzz down. The way it is now..it is terrible. If something is a 'missed call', you have to find a way to correct it within a couple seconds of it occuring. Period.

I like him. He doesn't really stand out in anyway (he certainly isn't as distinctive as RJ, so a lot of people won't like him for that) but I think he is just fine. Sometimes as of late RJ has been 'wearing' on me a bit with too many nicknames and catchphrases. I know a lot of people love that, but I prefer to just hear the game called (with some emotion of course.)

I agree. It sounds aweful....hard to listen to (bordering on embarassing to hear...for me at least) Then again, I have always been a bit 'boring' when it comes to game calls. For me, just call the game...its OK to get excited when your team scores and raise your voice, but I don't like all the cut nicknames and catch-phrases and overly dramatic play-by-play. The Guys from Pittsburgh and Boston drive me crazy. Rick is pretty good, but I think this Yeichel thing is a bit too much for me. His name is Eichel, leave it at that.

I forgot that on my list. I think that is probably more of a surprise to me than Calgary is.

Now that we are almost a month into the Season, I was thinking of some things that are really surprising me around the NHL: -Boston. I thought they were going to fall off the cliff. I truly thought they would be a below .500 team the entire year. It is early, but they are playing pretty well since the first week. -Crosby. I still figured on him being a point-a-game guy or slightly more with Kessel, but him only getting 1 goal through 10 games is a little surprising. Interesting fact: in the last calendar year (Oct 30 2014, to Oct 30, 2015), Crosby has played in 78 games and has 22 total goals. -Toronto. I thought they would be pretty bad, but not 1 win in the first month bad. -Calgary. A drop off from last year? I didn't even think that with the young guys they have and them getting better. They can still turn it around, but they look like a different team. -Jamie Benn. Hard to say the guy who led the league in points last year is a surprise...but I thought last year was his career year. Hes starting out even better than last year. -Fighting. Last year was the lowest number of fights in the NHL (per game) since the late 1960s (last year had less than half what we saw even in the early 2000s) and this year so far it is even much lower than last year. Go back into the 1990's and the Sabres had close to (or above) 100 fights a year. In 2003-2004 they had 68. Through most of the last 5 years, they had 30-40 per year. This year, they are on a pace for about 15. As long as the hockey is good though, I don't really miss the fights. Anything else that I missed, or that really stands out to anyone as a surprise though the first month?

Normally, I am not one to care much about 'journalists'. Sure, I like some better than others, but I don't get too wound up about most of them or their opinion. The Patriots guys are a too much for me sometime, but I can even put up with Rodney Harrison in small doses, no problem. There have been 2 recent excpetions to this for me. Cris Carter. After what he said at the rookie symposium, how does this guy still have a job? That is disgracefull. And Steven A. Smith. I don't know exactly why it is, but I can't watch him at all. He annoys me, his talking points annoy me, his voice annoys me. When I see him on TV now, I don't CARE what the topic is, change the channel to anything as quickly as possible.

I'm not for trading for him at all, for any reasonable offer. Stamkos is a win-now type of guy. Sure, he is good enough he will be one of those players who is still good when he is 30, 31....but you are going to be paying money (in a cap world) for the 26-27 year old Stamkos when he is 31. I don't want to give up any legit prospects who will be a better bargain in 3-5 year from now (when this TEAM is supposed to be hitting its 'multi-year' peak). Unless the Sabres got a truly remarkable deal from Tampa, and unless he ALSO was willing to sign a deal for less than $8 a year...I don't really want him on this team.

The difference beween a Great GM/front office and all the others....deciding NOW to sell off an aging roster. Bostons rebuild could have been quicker and not as deep had they decided to trade some of these parts last year. Very few teams are able to do that, but the ones that do are usually rewarded for doing it early, not later. Not only do you put off the day when you finally 'turn the corner' buy an extra year or two...but they would have gotten a lot more for those assets last year.

I have no idea what to make of Bogosian. When I see him play, sometimes he looks like a tough-guy type, clear the goal out D-man who doesn't make mistakes, then the next shift he is turning it over. When I hear people who know more hockey than me talk about him...I hear he can be (or already is) a legit top 2 d-man who is destined for all-star games...and other say he will 'fit in nicely' as a pretty reliabe 3-4 D-man as long as you don't give him too many minutes. Some I hear talk about him like he is going to be the second coming of Chris Pronger...others seem to say he is 1/2 step better than Mike Weber. I really have no idea what to think of him.