mjd1001

As I posted last night my quality was decent, but certainly not 1080p high def, a little grainy and blurry. The biggest problem I had was buffering or the feed freezing during the leaves Canadians game. The picture would stutter once every couple of minutes, in about every 10 minutes it would lock up and stay that way until I backed out of the game and tried to restart it. He had to do that 10 times or more last night. I don't think it's our internet connection either. We've never had that issue with any of our other streaming services, and we have a very good premium internet connection with the router only one room away from the TV. The picture quality I would like to see better but it was acceptable. The buffering and stuttering of the image is unacceptable they have to address that soon.

I'm watching the Leafs-Montreal game right now. The streaming quality isn't great. Its OK, it is better than non-high def, but its certainly coming across lower than 1080p and there is an occasional 1/2 second freeze up. We have a good internet connection, and have watched other streaming services and sports that look better than this. Again, not AWFUL, but for sure it isn't as easy to watch as what we are used to.

I agree with this....and I'll take it one step further. A "Center" isn't now what it was 10 years ago, and in 5 years from now I think it will be even different. Years and years ago, a Center took most of the faceoffs. He played in the center of the ice. A left winger stayed on the left side of the ice, and a right winger on the right side. A 'Center' had certain defensive responsibilities that the wingers didn't have. The game was more 'rigid' that way. That is changing, and it CAN change more. The place the player lines up I think can matter less than we think it does. If a 'center' traditionally has certain defensive responsibilities.....Why can't the LW take those responsibilities in the D zone if he is better suited to do so? As the game gets more and more complex, I just think a good coach isn't going to force players into roles defined by traditional positions, a good coach will let players do what they do best, not mattering what 'position' they play. Its kinda like the NFL. A decade ago or more, an outside linebacker did certain things. An inside linebacker did other things. A safety did things. A DE did things..and you drafted players to fit those ROLES. Not anymore. There are so many 'hybrid' players now. You don't force a guy into a 'position'...but rather you let a guy (often times) do what he does best, and build a Defense, or an individual defensive play, around that. I guess that is a long way of saying...why can't the NHL have players who are 'hybrid' forwards....with a coach mixing and matching players not based on what position they each play, but rather on how well they work together regardless of what position they are assigned on the roster?

This is not a 'yes' or 'no' answer. They realize they may lose. They have set up the roster knowing the moves they make will mean the team is bad this year. But it isn't intentionally to lose as many games as possible.

So he won't be given the official "C", but for all intents and purposes, he is the captain, just not official. I guess you keep the letter open in case someone younger develops into the role as the season proceeds?

It isn't 'nothing', it is conversation about some new information (even if it is just conjecture). That is the point of having a message board, isn't it?

Who is cheering for that exactly? There are differing points of view as to what is an acceptable trade offer and what the timing should be, but just how is HOPING for a trade that is similar to the ROR trade?

Not really. Here is the reality....if no one is/was willing to pay his asking price, the his price was too high. Many times an Asset is not worth what you THINK it should be worth, but it is worth what someone is willing to pay. Remember, you aren't selling to just one team, you have the entire league to sell to, and probably 4-6 teams that are seriously interested in what you are selling. If you have 4-6 teams that want your asset, but no one is willing to pay the price, then your price is too high. It isn't a matter of him 'wilting'. If you want him to get his price and ONLY his price, then he is wilting....but 'fair value' is what someone is willing to pay. Its like selling a car/truck. My friend put a lot of money into his truck a few years ago. He wanted to sell it a couple years later. he was SURE it was worth $25,000. But after a full year no one was willing to pay his price. His truck sold a year later when he was willing to accept $18,000. He didn't 'wilt', he simply ended up lowering his asking price because a LONG time went by with no-one willing to meet his original price.

Sounds like it could be a new thread started by someone with some ideas...

This team has a lot of holes to be filled, it has a lot of room for 'prospects' to become regulars or stars of the future. With that said, you take the BEST player/prospects available in a trade proposal. If one of them happens to be a goalie, great, take it. If you get better players/prospects that are not goalies...then great you take them.

Not very important. You trade Jack and you're looking to get futures. This team has futures for goalies already.

It goes back to what a lot of us think... If a player is showing a few weeks of positive signs in camp when they're very young that doesn't mean you promote them to the NHL level. Give them a taste of 3 or 4 NHL games sure. But until they prove over a 20 or more game stretch that they belong in the NHL and are knocking down the door from the AHL level, don't just give them their NHL spot. He should not have been given a spot on the team last year, until he played in the AHL and proved he was better than the AHL. And yes, I did say that at the beginning of last year on these forums.

I agree. Why closed down a thread, if you don't want to check in on it so often don't check in on it. For me it's part of my day, I don't know when a move will be made with Jack, and I don't know if there's any information so I check the thread when I get home. Why closed down the thread for those of us who just want to browse through it for any information?

As most other people have said he's good enough to give you more and he has in the past, but we have gone too long without seeing it. It's been a year and a half and likely to be more since he was an actual dangerous offensive threat. That's not a slump, that's a trend.

Maybe. I'm not saying he should go to Rochester now after spending so much time in Buffalo last year and doing well for part of it. Just in general, lets start these guys in Rochester. And even if they have a great preseason, I'd like a few weeks in Rochester to verify that great preseason, as usually they only get 4-6 games in preseason (if that).

Agreed on Rochester. I think all of the young guy should be in Rochester until they are banging down the door to come up. Don't bring them up when you "think they MIGHT be ready" or after they have "a few good games in Rochester". When they are playing like legit AHL all stars, THAT is when you bring them up. I know the fans in Buffalo want to see the young guys play, but we have seen TOO many players in Buffalo before they were ready. And I know this gets brought up quite a bit, but it is a legit question.....can you tell me any players that 'could have been stars' but they spent TOO much time in the AHL?

As others have said, did it happen when he hurt his ankle? It is like someone turned a switch off with him in mid-February, actually a few games before that Caps game where he hurt his ankle. Even that 40 goal season...He had 4 goals in the last 25 games (a 13 goal pace)...After 36 goals in his first 57 games.

Walter Skinner, asst directer on the show.

Mulder's boss was named Skinner

I think there wasn't much doubt among many of us this would be primarily a 'losing' season. Whether it is a long season depends on what you want from it. If you are all about Wins and Losses, this is likely to be a LONG season. However, if you are looking for that 1 or maybe 2 games a month that surprise you in a positive way....or more importantly looking for occasional flashes from some of the young guys (even if they aren't happening on a regular basis and are happening in otherwise ugly losses), then the season may not be so long. Or, and this may be the biggest thing....if the 2nd half of the season is better than the first have (even if still with a losing record), or the last 20 games of the season are better than any other 20 game stretch, this might actually be an enjoyable season to follow.

Yeah, they are, but almost all cities are the same. Try listening to a Bruins broadcast, I don't say this lightly it is almost un-listenable to if you aren't a fan of the Bruins. Pittsburgh has a pretty hard broadcast to listen to also. Even the Sabres are really homer-ish to an outsider. On more than one occasion in the past few years I have had friends over from out of town with a Sabres game on TV and they quickly commented on how much of a homer Rick is. You are playing to your audience. Most fans don't want to hear the truth all the time, they WANT to hear how good their team is or that their team is 'better'.

Ok, I know someone else in another thread told me his 'real' name is John, not Jack, but is that really true? If so, what is the point of using it if just about everyone knows him as Jack? I don't 'live' on these forums, so everytime I see "john" it takes me a few seconds to realize who we are talking about.

I can vote yes or no, but the reasons I would have nothing to do with the choices you gave after the answers.

That might not even be possible anymore. Even if he had Surgery this week...the Olympics are what....just over 4 months away? Between rehab from surgery and just time to get in 'hockey shape' and practice with teammates, the Olympics are quickly becoming an impossibility also. I thought the olympics would be a big push/incentive for him to get something done. No one in the NHL got to play in 2018, if he misses 2022, his next chance won't be until 2026. He'll be what, 29 or 30 by then?

I know the insurance angle has been discussed, but it seems like the conversation quickly moves away from it, and people get entrenched in their positions of either being 100% for the team or 100% for Jack. Reading through this thread, it just seems a lot of people don't understand the insurance angle or I just ignoring it. The insurance angle I brought up again because it simply might be this is at a stalemate with absolutely no resolution at all in the near or far future.... unless either Jack decides to get the surgery the team wants, or the team is willing to risk all that money with no insurance just for the right to trade him for future assets. Until one side gives in and a very very big way, this could go no place forever. It's not Adam's fault, it's not other teams fault for not giving up enough, it is the situation. Jack has to give in, or the sabres have to risk a lot of money that's uninsured. I could see the sabres just moving forward and treating Jack as an asset that had a career ending injury or someone who retired... Rather than putting themself on the hook for the remainder of his contract if it won't be insured by letting him get a surgery that he wants and not the team doctors. And that would be more of an ownership call than a GM call. From the team's point of view regarding insurance, letting Jack get his choice of surgery is taking on a lot of risk and getting very little reward, especially when the CBA that the players negotiated has it the other way around and the teams have negotiated the right for protection. And as far as spell checking the team name, I'm on a phone using voice to text. I didn't have time to go back and manually edit every time the team name was spelled out.