GoPre

Very disappointed w/ the news. Really did not expect this to happen. So much for getting an Eichel jersey this year....

The reason the Union fought was to keep the States together. It wasn't to end slavery. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1st, 1863. This brought an end to slavery only to states a part of the confederacy. However, the confederacy was notified in September of 1862 of this proclamation. Confederate States were told if they returned to the Union before January 1st, 1863 they could continue slavery. After the Emancipation Proclamation was official, slave states not a part of the confederacy (Delaware, Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky) were still allowed to have slavery. The Civil War was fought over state rights.

And I'll be up for all of that! I'm a life long Sabres fan, but have yet to buy a jersey w/ a players came on the back. I have Eichel's jersey on my priority list.

It's only 11:33 eastern....so they just might!

Works just about w/ every beverage!

Thank you for finishing it. We're all given the right to our own thoughts/impressions. I was pleased w/ your mentioning of Saving Private Ryan, We Were Soldiers and Glory. In my opinion, the last mentioned was the best portrayal of the Civil War in a movie. I really enjoyed Gettysburg, but Glory far surpasses it. It was based on the memoirs of Robert Gould Shaw. A 26 year old leading the first all black regiment in the United States. Glory was accurately portrayed. Gave many the idea of what really happened. Let me add, this may counter what I previously said, the Civil War was not about the end of slavery. It was about states rights.

Questions are when can we order Eichel jerseys and how fast can we order them before being "sold out?" I've yet to purchase a jersey w/ a players name on the back. Have always gone w/ uniform only. Eichel will be my first w/ a name on the back. I am very excited!

That and if Snow is in the process of offering an extension, it'd clearly show it's of no concern. And yes, you can't fake an eye test. I know people in that profession.

Hollywood will be Hollywood and entertainment has to provided to sell tickets, but there are facts and makers of the film did speak to a number of vets about what actually took place to provide an idea of what those involved experienced. The average "life expectancy' of a Sherman tank/crew was only 6 weeks. So yes, the amount of hatred a Sherman crew or really any other allied solider had for the Germans had to be through the roof. To say rules of engagement/war were not broken in WWII is not true. This was shown in Saving Private Ryan. German Tiger tanks were far superior. One of the advantages Americans had in the tank department was the number of tanks. Americans had more than the Germans. Numbers can, not always, win. Sure, this may have been more for Hollywood, but there were numerous reports of soldiers shooting themselves to end whatever pain they were experiencing due to some type of fatal injury. This includes being on fire. I can go on and on, but I have a cookout to enjoy. I'm very happy to hear you've never seen Pearl Harbor! That's 3 hours of my life I'll never get back. Tora! Tora! Tora! is one to watch if you're interested in a movie on Pearl Harbor. One of the main vets interviewed for this movie expressed his positive impression of it. Only part of the movie that disappointed him was the ending. Felt it was far fetched. Spoke of how a Sherman tank would've been taken out rather quickly. Also said a Sherman tank could not have traveled as far as it did in "Fury" due to the fact it ran 5 miles per gallon. Would've needed a refill. Those were his only complaints. I'm sure he had other problems w/ the film, but overall he was satisfied. Let me add a number of vets interviewed shared the same opinion.

Out of curiosity, how is the movie inaccurate and over the top? I thought the actors did a fine job. "Fury" did not glorify war. No war was like those portrayed in the John Wayne era. Please tell me you do not consider "Pearl Harbor" as one of the best war movies you have even seen. Ashamed I even finished that one.

Well said Dudly, simply well said. And of course thank you for this post. So proud of my kids. Beyond happy/thankful to be their father. Cannot be expressed in words. Happy Father's Day Sabrespace!

The Sochi Olympics games were played on wider rinks and scoring was a problem. Goals weren't coming as average joe expected. Unless the source I checked was wrong, there were only 2.35 goals scored per game in the Sochi Olympics. Sure, it's made up of teams w/ little practice, but it does give an idea of how the widening of rinks may not increase amount of goals scored in the NHL. Know I posted this earlier, but this is CBS Sports opinion on it. "The misnomer is that since there is more ice to play on, there is more room to create and space to make passes. The flip side, though, is that play along the boards is that much further from the net and keeping teams to the outside results in sharper-angle shots from longer distances."

Moulson and Okposo playing opposite of one another? Former teammates that may have chemistry? That is something to consider. Make a realistic trade and give the guy a chance. If he plays well and manages to stay healthy, offer him a reasonable contract.

I also want more flow. Scoring isn't my complaint. Good post. Agreed. No interference calls = no flow. Where the problem lies is the general fan base. The NHL is a business. They'll provide what sells the most tickets/increases tv ratings. What is a head scratcher is the common complaint of the lack of scoring. If refs make the calls the amount of interference will drop, which would improve the flow of play and possibly increase scoring.

There almost is no other solution. Widening the rinks will do jack for scoring. Plus, if the rinks were widened the NHL would have to increase prices for the remain seats. That would include the upper level seats. Simple fix is to call the penalties in the rule book.

I also agree. Didn't Murray make a comment on how he wants players to be 25ish?

Good point. Penalty seemed to be enforced the first season and half after the lockout. Too bad refs started looking in the wrong direction.

O'Reilly is the player I hope for. However, as I believe you and others have mentioned in other posts, the costs will be high. Not only for the trade, but the risk involved w/ re-signing O'Reilly. Reports are out he may want 8 mill a year for 8 seasons? A bit too much in my opinion. Especially w/ the players Buffalo will have to re-sign in 2 to 3 years. If Colorado were to re-sign him and the Sabres had a chance to make a trade offer, it'd be worth considering. Simply because the risk of not being able to re-sign him is no longer there. But in my opinion if Colorado managed to make deal w/ him, especially one of that size, why would they want to trade him? Making a deal like that is more or less saying the Avalanche never wanted to lose O'Reilly and they have him set in their long term plans.

Let's not blame the fat on Kessell He has some type of medical condition. Not that Murray should exclude Kessel's weight from his rating of him. But let's not slam the guy for that. ;) And no, I do not want Kessell on the Sabres. I agree w/ the other things you had to say. Especially the hope of Toronto being unable to trade him.

Good point. This is what CBS Sports had to say about it. Widening the ice probably would not increase scoring. "The misnomer is that since there is more ice to play on, there is more room to create and space to make passes. The flip side, though, is that play along the boards is that much further from the net and keeping teams to the outside results in sharper-angle shots from longer distances."

Goon 2 started filming this month. Can't wait for that one!

Well, owning the album may suggest that. That's something I can't claim! Didn't even know what money was when it was released. ha ha

And I just got....oh boy

:cry: I knew what you meant the first time....

I wasn't citing that particular post. It's just been a here and there type of thing. Posts can easily be misinterpreted. One of the disadvantages of talking/debating on a message board is just that. Not seeing facial expressions or hearing tone of voice can have a person thinking the complete opposite of what a post truly said. My concern is that fact there have been posts equivalent to a playground argument. Again, when compared to other message boards Sabrespace feels very comfortable and mature. It is a great place to talk/debate all kinds of topics.