mjd1001

I'd be good with all of those.

Way to 'step up' and give reasons why. The fact that you think what I said is ridiculous just shows how ridiculously little you know. Let me try to educate you on a few things AGAIN: -The whole point of the converstation I was having with others on this topic was not who is good or not good, but rather WHERE THE LINE SHOULD BE DRAWN for HOF entrance. If you follow the conversation you will see that some think putting up a career full of numbers is good enough. Others think a HOF should only be for the elite-of-the-elite (players who are of MVP caliber, multiple championship pedigree.) SO I ask you again, how is my post ridiculous because the discussion is where to draw the line between those groups of players? Oh, don't bother answer, I know the anser, it ISN'T ridiculous, you just want to make a point that the converstaion had little to do with. And lets even go to the point about Hawerchuk. In the Era he played in, his stats were inflated. There were many years where his numbers looked great, but he wasn't even in the top 5 in points. If you 'normalize' his stats for the modern era, he would probably be at most a 400-450 goal, maybe a 1000 point guy. VERY GOOD numbers over a career, but to me now hall of fame. He is also a guy that I saw playing when I was a kid and even back then he stood out to me as a guy who was actaully pretty bad in terms of backchecking and his effort in that respect. Compared to his 'contemporarys', very little post season success, a lot less scoring in the post season. For his career, he was not in the top 10 in scoring (points per game) in the regular season, not in the top 10 scoring ppg in the playoffs either, was a minus player both in the playoffs and regular season. SO, does he have very good career numbers? Yes. Do I think he was dominant at any point in his career and an MVP contender (even in the conversation)? Nope. And to me, I am one of those people that I think the HOF is a bit watered down so players like him....Federko, maybe even Housley are the ones that fall into the "Hall of very good" category and not really the "Hall of fame/excellence". But I guess for people who don't follow the whole converstation, or who simply don't like what they hear, its just easier to say "your whole post is patently ridiculous". 🙄

Not kidding at all. The whole point about this conversation is where do you draw the line for getting into the HOF? Federko and Hawerchuk can be considered into that "hall of good", not the "hall of great". Neither one was the best at their position, or honestly even close to it. Neither carried their teams through the playoffs on a regular basis. And their numbers are WAY inflated for the era they played in. Good? Yes. Bordering on Great? Yes, but truly great? I'm saying no, that is why my response was I would put many of them into the same category as Housley, very good, all-star level players how put up GREAT numbers over a career but weren't game changers.

Calgary likes those guys...since the year 2000, among others they have had: Brian Sutter, Brent Sutter, 2 stints by Daryll Sutter, and throw in a Mike Keenan stint there too in Calgary. Then there was Bill Peters who had a stint there who had accusations of making racist comments and punching a player(s) during games. The Calgary organization sure does like its 'old school hockey' guys.

The funny thing about Toronto fans, they are convinced things are fixed against them and if you go to their boards, after every loss they have, I mean EVERY LOSS there are multiple comments about how the refs screwed them. Before the playoff series against Tampa, there was even a post where someone photoshopped a ref and put a Lightning logo on the front of his chest, saying the Leafs were going to have to beat Tampa and the Refs. I grew up watching the Leafs on Hockey Night in Canada and as a kid I actually liked them. They are the only team I think I ever liked at one time and stopped liking because of their fanbase and how they whine and cry and whine about officials ALL the time.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I think all the hall of fames have too many players in them that aren't great. If it were up to me Housley would not be in there. Neither would Hawerchuk. I question the Sedins. Kevin Lowe no way. Housley gets in way before I would even consider Zubov. I never thought Ed Belfour was the reason his teams won. Bernie Federko...are you kidding me? Marion Hossa is the definition of getting in via longevity. Almost the same with Mark Recchi. So yes, Housley is marginal. But longevity and the numbers he put up put in in the same category as many of the above players. The NHL Hall of fame is NOT the hall of fame in reality, as you said it is the hall-of-very-good. But as long as they are going to inducte players like that, Housley deserves to be in just as much as some of the above players. I wisht it wasn't that way, but Hall of fames get vistiors by inducting players, not keeping them out.

4th all time scoring defenseman. I agree with you that he was never 'great' as in a dominant player who carried a team at an MVP level, but when you are 4th all time, that may get you in the HOF. I think the top forwards not in the HOF in career scoring are Turgeon/Roenick. (not couting active guys who aren't eligible yet). And you have to get well into the 30's in terms of ranking among forward before you find where those guys rank.

He was born in Toronto. Hall of Fame voters really do love their Canadian players, especially ones who were born right in the GTA....That has to give him at least another point or two IF he gets close.

Or, as others have said, the league is different now. Positions are more 'hybrid' than they used to be. In your Scheme, a CB can play safety or a S can be a nickel CB. Traditional DE's and OLBs aren't the same now as they were a decade ago. So, the same can be true about a TE. A TE can be a TE technically, but can be used as a new/different type of slot guy. Coaches/teams no longer draft guys to fit the 'model' of what the position traditionally was....now guys are drafted based on their skillset and schemes/plays are drawn around those skills.

I really can't figure out these playoffs. The majority of what I thought would happen is just wrong not even 2 weeks in: -I thought the Panthers were under-rated (not in the bottom 6 teams in the field) but I thought the Bruins would sweep them or at worst 5 games. I was wrong here. -I thought Toronto would move on in 4 or 5, and even if Tampa won a game the Leafs would dominate play. Wrong again. -Devils had a great season, but I thought this was the Rangers in 5 or 6, and the Rangers were the 2nd choice of mine to come out of the East. Looking bad here too. -Jets were hit hard with injuries, but I thought this was an even series, with it tipping the Jets way in 6 or 7. Way wrong here. -I thought the Hurricanes would make quick work of the Islanders, in 5, 6 at worst. Not looking good here. -Colorado was going to dispatch of the Kraken in 4 or 5. They were easily my pick to come out of the west again. Wrong. -Stars/Wild and Kings/Oilers I thought were toss ups. Those 2 are the only series I haven't been totally wrong on so far. Just when I was confident I had a pretty good handle on teams, reality punches one back in the face to take that confidence down a notch.

Twitter is handling this pick better than I thought. I don't know much about the guy but I'm fine with it. WR would have been nice, but i'm not too worked up over it. The Bills passing game dropped off quite a bit after Allens injury and it seemed to linger the rest of the year. If he is healthy, the Bills are a top 5 passing team in the league even without a first round receiver. If it wasn't an injury and his play legit got worse for some reason, then one of the rookie WR's in this draft wasn't going to change that anyway.

Agreed. Buiilding through the draft wasn't the problem. How you drafted was the problem, or trying to accelerate the process too much was the problem. Many of the people on here like to say what the Sabres have done in the past decade (or so) was wrong so that is why they need to make more aggressive moves instead of just waiting on the young guys. But again, there are 2 reasons why the past decade plus didn't work out 1.) bad drafting 2.) accelerating the rebuild too much. As far as drafting, the Sabres were awful in the few years leading up to the drought and through the drought. They had a lot of first round picks, but read this list of 1st and 2nd rounders they picked from 2004 - 2017. And yes, I picked those years because those are the years that set up your roster through the drought : -Drew Stafford, Mike Funk, Marek Zagrapan, Philipp Gogulla, Dennis Persson, Jonas Enroth, T.J. Brennan, Drew Schiestel, Tyler Myers and Ennis, Like Adam, Zack Kassian, Mark Psysk, Joel Armia, Mikhael Grigorenko, Zemgus, Jake McCabe, Risto, Zadarov,Connor Hurley, Justin Bailey Compher, Reinhart, Brendan Lemieux,Eric Cornell, Vaclav Karabacek, Eichel, Brendan Guhle, Alex Nylander, Rasmus Asplund, Mitts, Marcus Davidsson, UPL 16 first round picks. 17 second rounders. The Cornerstone building blocks of your team. Not a single one of them yet has 200 career goals. 8 of them never even made it to the NHL and played a single game. Another 6 had NHL careers so short they didn't even make it to 100 career games. (Yes, the numbers are similar with many other teams, but few other teams have SO few big hits) And of all those picks, 5 of them even being top 10 overall picks, how many superstars, or even stars are there? Reinhart (really a star? maybe I guess). Eichel? Over 14 years, 16 first rounders, 5 of them to 10 picks, and an additonal 17 2nd rounders....you generated a total of TWO players (that you needed to draft both 2nd overall) that can be considered anything close to difference makers. The strategy of 'draft and develop' isn't the problem. The probem was/is probably the 2nd worst drafting of any NHL team over the past 2 decades (I think only Arizona might be worse).

In the 5 seaons with the Sabres, if you take out the 2 bad RK seasons, Skinner has averaged 36 goals per season. If he did that in is 2 bad RK seaons...he'd have 51 more career goals. That would put him at 384. Even IF you could do that (and of course you can't, those years are lost) he still is not a lock for 500, depending on his aging production and injuries. I agree has has a shot at the HOF, but only if he gets a few deep playoff runs in the next few years, is productive in those playoffs, AND gets to or approaches 500 career goals. Possible? Yes, but not easy.

AL central. Could it be the worst division overall top to bottom in the last 15 years? Minnesota is the only team over .500 and they are just 3 games over (Tampa is 15 over and a couple other teams are already 9 over). The bottom of the division has not only lost a lot but there have been some pretty big blowouts. KC has played 13 games at HOME and lost 12 of the 13. That is really hard to do. I guess one team is likely to step up, but could a team win this division being .500 or less for the entire season?

I like to not think of myself as THAT old (in my 40's) but I agree with you on the above. To 2nd that, the first round series are too long. When the playoffs started, I was all ready to watch as many games as possible, sit back without much of a rooting interest and enjoy some hockey. And overall a lot of the games have been good. BUT, I'm already at the point of 'move this along' and 'I'm ready for the 2nd round'. First round series should be 5 games, not 7....2nd round I could go either way. Games every other day with no exception. Lets find a way to not drag this out until possibly the middle of June.

I think its probably close to this. Writers need stuff to write about, and as we are learning over the past couple decades, but mostly over the last few years....the majority of people don't 'read' or 'watch' news for actual News, but they read/watch to see what they WANT to beleive presented to them as news. If an overseas reporter is read by people who would like to think NHL prospects will come back to Europe, that is what they will be given. On a slightly off topic note, the overall quality of articles/reporting is getting really bad. I don't just mean the partisan stuff, but actually what passes for a news article. I read this morning an article about a US based car company that the write 'projected' to have a new model coming out. Halfway through the article he gave reasons as to why it would be avaiable very shortly, but then ended the article saying why it might not even be produced. How do people get stuff like that published, even on a web site?

Where is/was the niagara dragstrip located? My sporting interests are close to yours. I will watch Nascar but only the road courses. I haven't watched a full baseball or basketball game in years even though I liked them growing up. I guess I'm a Blue Jays fan but I hardly have seen them pay so oh well. Football/NFL/The Bills is the one thing changing for me. I was the 'never miss a game for any reason' person from the time I was a kid up until 5 years ago. Mostly the Bills, but the entire NFL. Something is going on though, where my interest in football/the NFL and even the Bills is fading quickly.

Tennis courts yes. Clubhouse to hold meetings but no pool.

The HOA comment brought back some bad memories although they were just from 2 weeks ago. We visited my laws in Florida and my wife's father was talking about what happens to the house that he lives in when he passes along. It looks like hes leaving it to us but he really really is putting the full court press on having us leave Western New York and move back to Florida because he doesn't understand why we want to live here when Florida is such a wonderful place. The thing is, their HOA doesn't do anything except for cut the lawn. They obviously don't plow in the Winter, they don't provide any other services, they don't even trim hedges or anything but it's almost $300 a month for an HOA fee. The HOA board walks around the community together every 2 weeks with a list of who they want to find for even the smallest things, a little bit mold on your roof? Fine. Not taking care of your trees or your shrubs? That's a fine. If the paint on your mailbox is fading you get one warning and if you don't take care of it within a couple of weeks, you get fined for that also. When he moved there a little more than 10 years ago, his property taxes were a bit over $3000yr. Last year he paid almost $9000, and homeowners insurance 10 years ago was about $1200 a month and now hes up closing in on to 6000/year. There's a variety of reasons we wouldn't move down there, but after he showed us the bills and talked about it, Florida's actually gone from a cheaper place to live to very expensive, at least in the community where he is.

Taking everything into consideration, I guess its better if the local media has reporters following the team around, but if they didn't, it really wouldn't bother me. Locker room interviews after the game dont' really bring much information, not much more than we can already get by watching what is broadcast online. And for me, I 'follow' the team mostly through this message board and 'twitter', occasionally listening to talk radio and actually watching the game. Basically, that is 99% of what I need for myself. If a source of info about the team goes away or a source of 'quotes' disappears, I guess I don't even think of it and just get info form someplace else or just focus on the info that IS available.

It is still early, I think the division will 'shake out' a bit and if Toronto keeps playing well they will be fine. On a seperate note....The Blue Jays have always been the team I wanted to follow, but for years and years, we got the Mets, Cubs, Braves, Yankees on our local cable package but you could not get the Blue Jay games. Eventuall I just stopped caring about those other teams and not being able to watch the Blue Jays games.....well...over time that is pretty much the reason I stopped following baseball. We live in Northern Niagara county....when you drive down the hill toward the village of Lewiston you can actually SEE the dome in Toronto across the lake with your own eyes. For years we have been the farm club of that team...yet for years we couldn't get the games on a local cable package yet we could see 4 other teams that are located hundred of miles away. stupid.

Toews, Kane, Wood.....I guess any of them may or may not bring something to the Sabres, but the reason I don't want any of them? I'd rather have what is here now than to get any of them for what you are going to pay them. I know there are some people here who legit think they make this team a lot better. I'm not one of them. They may or may not make this team any better, so to bring them in, in my view, is change for the sake of change. I know as fans that is what we like to talk about, but i'm not really interested myself.

I agree with you. I was a kid in the 1980's and there were no message boards back then, but the number of people who want to run a "one dimensional" goal scorer who brings nothing to the team other than Power play goals.....reminds me quite a bit of how people talked about Dave Andreychuck when he was here. I'm not saying VO is as good as Andreychuck, but the similarities are there in how people talk about him. I'm somewhat indifferent on him being here or not being here, but you don't make this team better by replacing him with the 'rookie of choice' of the forum. He is a streaky scorer, even more so than most, and he isn't a physical player or a Defensive specialist. But, his goals matter. Every goal he scored wasn't meaning at the end of a game or an empty netter with 3 seconds left. And as much as he doesn't backcheck, he isn't DIRECTLY responsible for goals against often by being a turnover machine in his own end. So, can he be replaced? Sure. If he is gone and I upset? No, but I think he matters more to this team than people think. His plus-minus was bad, but scoring goals is a very hard thing to do for 75%+ of the players in the league, and he is pretty good at that.

As a fan I agree with you, he has been one of their better players. But without knowing the true extent of the injury, I'm OK with him not playing. I mean, If he could play and there was no chance of him making the injury worse I'd say let him play, but only him and the staff of the team really know that so...I guess I'm on the side of trusting them.

I'm not sure why, but I don't seem to have a hatred of the Bruins that most others do. I want them to be worse than the Sabres. I want them to take that step back (or 5 steps back) and miss the playoffs. I HATE their Broadcast/play by play guys. There is a lot to not like. But If they win, it doesn't bother me (other than if I have to listen to Jack Edwards). For the most part, it isnt' the players on a team that make me like or dislike them, it is often the fanbase. And are Boston Fans Spoiled overall? Sure, but in hockey, I have been to a couple Bruins games in Boston over the years and it wasn't awful. I'd still prefer the Bruins over the Leafs because I think Leaf fans are the most intolerable in hockey by far. How can as fanbase like Toronto be SO arrogant when they hardly ever win anything of consequence?