JohnC

I said that as per the rule, Toronto got the call right, because they did. I respectfully disagree with you and the majority of people here. I'm looking forward to the Dallas game.

The play stands. Islanders earned two points in the win and the Sabres got zero points in the loss. I have no issue with people having a different view on the legitimacy of the goal. That's hockey, that's sports and that is part of life. In my estimation there is too much looking back instead of moving on. I'm looking forward to the Dallas game.

I was impressed with the play of Stillman until he got hurt. He got in a fight and was injured. In my view, he's a third pairing caliber of player but his addition was a plus for the unit. And as others have noted our GM did make a legitimate offer, maybe the best offer to Ottawa for Chycrun, but they declined to deal with us. What's clear is that the organization recognizes more needs to be done to upgrade this unit. I'm anticipating another defenseman added to the mix this offseason. And I expect Johnson to sign with Buffalo. He's not likely to play right away but he should be in our pipeline and available within a year or so.

I apologize. It was @SwampD. Every game has a number of twists and turns such as failures to capitalize on opportunities and damaging sloppy play. No one play determines the outcome. Teams overcome bad calls and take advantage of calls that are in their favor when they shouldn't have been. It's a 60 minute game.

Your last sentence is exactly the basis on which the Toronto review officials made their determination that it was a goal. You can disagree with how they saw the play and interpreted the play. I agree with the conclusion, and you don't. I'm okay with the different views. Interpretation of the rules and plays is what reviewing officials do. That's hockey and that's sports in general. As I stated in a response to @Weaveone can have whatever stance one wants. In the end the call stands. And is usually the case the outcome was not determined by one call (good or bad). It should be noted that on NHL Network the play was showed. All 3 panelists agreed with the goal call.

You can have whatever view you want on this issue. That's your prerogative. The league officials reviewed the play and came to a different conclusion. Their ruling stood. It's as simple as that. Sometimes rulings are called in your favor, and sometimes not. Official calls (in this case league review system) are part of hockey and sports in general. I didn't watch this game because of who was covering the game. But it is unlikely that this one call was the reason why the Sabres lost this game.

Whether his leg was up or his skate was on the ice is not the issue. He did not direct the puck with his leg. That's what the reviewers determined.

I recommend that you go for an eye exam.

His leg was raised. But it wasn't done to direct the puck. The puck hit his leg and it went in. There is nothing complicated or disputable about the play.

The commentators were not the evidence. The film clip they showed was. Trust your eyes and you will come away with the right conclusion.

I'm not broadening this discussion because it is pointless to do so. Trust your eyes and don't let your bias obscure what actually happened. There is nothing unusual about a fluke goal. Deflections off sticks, off of offensive and defensive players, happen all the time. Good calls, bad calls inexplicable calls. Sometimes they work in your favor and sometimes they don't. That's simply hockey!

The puck deflected off him. That's not in dispute. There was no kicking motion; he didn't direct it. That's the decisive issue that wasn't even difficult to determine. The commentators on the Hockey Network show said that the reversal was proper and obvious. This is a case where fans should trust their eyes and not let their bias over-rule what was visible.

I didn't watch the game because of availability. So I won't comment on the game. I saw the goal on NHL Network. It was, without question, a good goal. The reversal of the call was proper. Even the commentators on the show said that it was clear that the reversal was the right call. Reviews are part of the game. It worked as it was intended to do.

Don Granto made two moves that proved transformative for two players. First, and foremost, was moving Tage to center. And to a lesser degree he moved Mitts from the center position (as you long ago suggested) to the wing. As it turned out he went from spinning his wheels to becoming a productive winger. And it should also be noted that he is one of our best players along the wall.

Within this WGR link there are three hockey segments. One was with Granato for a 16 min segment. He talks about Greenway and his style of play. And the coach emphasized how he continues to adhere to handling his players as the season winds down. He's committed to the young players and their development and the importance of playing in meaningful games. There is a second segment with Andrew Filipponi who works in the media in Pittsburgh. (He used to work at WGR.) He is highly critical of how the Penguin management is handling the operation. The guest focuses on the up and down cycles of the Penguins and how they have recently handled the end cycle. The third 15 segment is with Paul Hamilton. (It's not a 25 min segment.) What I found interesting is that much of what he said about the game matched what was said here. In general, he thought the Sabres played well but the difference in this game was the play of the opposition's goalie. When Paul H was asked which forward was going to sit this game he responded similarly to what others here are advocating for. Overall, good hockey talk. https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/authors/howard-and-jeremy-show

There always seems to be a need of a target. As you astutely point out that when playing with better players his production unsurprisingly goes up. What I can say from my observation of him this season is that his effort level all season long has been consistently good. Even when he was being unfairly scorned by the reflexive critics what no one could deny was that he was one of our best battlers on the boards. He is a good example that when elevating the surrounding talent you also elevate the individual players. And that shouldn't be a surprise.

I'm not going to comment on the game because I was shut out from it. Instead, what I did do is listen to the game. I have listened to Dunleavy and Ray broadcast the TV games. Last night's game was enjoyable to listen to. I was able to follow the flow of the game and visualize the action on the ice. The timing between the two broadcasters were seamless. Ray knew when to interject his brief comments allowing Dunleavy to quickly get back to the action on the ice. Both of these fellows who seem to have a good rapport (fun poking relationship) had one of their best broadcasts. In my view Dunleavy is steadily getting better and smoother in his broadcast. As others have frequently noted broadcasting a good team helps elevates the performances of the employees behind the mikes. I was impressed by their broadcast.

I'll be succinct in my response. I simply don't know if the Sabres will make the playoffs. My sensation about this season, as it seems to like yours, is that regardless of the results it has been a fun and entertaining ride.

The commentator made the same point that you just made. It was time for him to move on. The situation was getting stale for him, and he needed a change of scenery to get a fresh start. What makes the trade to turn out to be a positive for us is our coach who is familiar with this player. Time will tell. This trade could work out well for both teams.

Within this WGR link is a segment where Judd Zulgad, who has a hockey podcast, discusses the trade. This is an 8 min segment. He is familiar with the player and his specific attributes. He points out when playing up to his talents, he is a major asset. However, when he slides and gets away from his game he is not as effective. The key in this trade is our coach. He knows the player and knows what needs to be done to get him to get him back to form. https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/authors/howard-and-jeremy-show

Just because of your display of lack of confidence in the player he is going to score a goal. Would you mind if I politely and non-sneeringly say I told you so? I'm predicting he will score a goal in this game. Trust me, have I ever been wrong? 🏒

If you had the same record with a soccer team the pre-game drunken hooligan fans would beat-you up before you got inside the stadium. Assaulting for the purpose of displaying loyalty to the team.

Why don't you change your plans and instead go to the lacrosse game?

Olofsson is going to score. And the haranguing crowd will be silenced for a short duration. This game will not be available to me. The freaking basturds! This is unadulterated stinky Bull Shitttt! I am upset and sad.

The Sabres have some games on hand with the Islanders but it seems that they have stabilized and are going to make a run. Ottawa is another team that I am wary of. They are getting better and more confident. And you are right that when you are at a bank it is important to make a deposit to later draw from.