pi2000

They have serious depth issues across the board. 5-11 would be my guess. I don't think Tyrod can stay on the field, especially once the OL starts to get dinged up, could spiral into a complete show quickly.

How many wins do I see them winning? All of them.

"Other towns"? Joke's on you, I don't even live there...

The Browns will be decent IMO, should have one of the best OLs in football, Watson might surprise as well. McDermott must still be wiping away his tears.... where is he?

McDermott and his sidekick going live here momentarily... http://www.buffalobills.com/video/videos/

If Watkins and Matthews (and their starting QBs) stay healthy this season, my money would be on Watkins only slightly out-producing Matthews.

that's great, but what about ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZEMGUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!

after the Watkins pick... "We went into this draft saying we were going to be bold, and we made a bold move," Bills CEO Russ Brandon said. "We thought it was a calculated risk and a risk we were willing to take," Whaley said. "The high cost of not making the playoffs is something we weighed in and we thought this guy was going to get us to the playoffs." oops

Consider there are infinite parallel universes (there are)... it at least one of the universes, the Bills never traded up for Watkins and took OBJ instead. I wonder what that universe looks like. Matthews is one of just five receivers to record 65 or more catches and 800 or more receiving yards in each of his first three NFL seasons along with Odell Beckham Jr, Mike Evans, A.J. Green and Randy Moss. What has Watkins done besides miss games and getting caught from behind while showboating? He's not a competitor.

This was a only somewhat tankish of a move. If they they trade Shady tho.... oh boy.

Watkins and Matthews are very similar IMO. Gaines is bigger and much more physical than Darby. And they net picks. Not terrible, considering Watkins was going to walk away after this season anyway. I find it interesting how they executed these two deals simultaneously. Wonder if the Rams and Eagles knew about the other trade.

There's a flaw in this reasoning.... controlled zone entries occur when you have the opportunity to carry the puck in. If you don't have that opportunity, then you dump it in and get after it. Of course, controlled entries result in more shots because you maintain possession... but it's not the smart play if the defense is setup such that you don't have the opportunity for a controlled entry. In these cases, if you attempt to maintain possession (instead of dumping it), a turnover is likely. Turnover's at the blue-line (either one) are big nono's which often result in high quality scoring chances going the other direction. So for this study to say that controlled entries result in many more shots... yeah, of course they do, but the type of entry is dictated by the defense, not the offense.

I love his offensive skill, but he's a liability as reflected in his negative TRpm on a BAD team. Meaning his team was slightly worse with him on the ice than it was with him off the ice. If BUF needed a boost to their power play, then it might make more sense, but they don't.

yes, well over a billion, mostly on content production

They cover zone entries and dump ins in the lower level clinics.... basic stuff, there's not a one-size fits all, depends on the situation... the personnel on the ice, game situation, how long they've been out there, etc... The common theme they pound into you is that hockey is simply a math problem, you're trying to create mini 2-on-1's all over the ice. Meaning guys without the puck have to work the hardest... to get to openings and support the puck carrier. Shane Doan talked about this at length and we watched a number of game clips of how this works.... which is something I think was lacking last season in Buffalo. How much of that was due to coaching vs players, who knows. Doan also preached at length about attacking the puck on the PK.... have at least one guy attacking the puck carrier at all times when you're killing a penalty. PK is all about causing chaos, disrupting the PP setup. Taking a passive approach (staying in a tight box or diamond or backing off in the neutral zone) gives too much time and space for the PP unit to execute their plan of attack.

They still need a guy to offload ROR... someone they can trust to take critical d-zone faceoffs and kill penalties.

In this case, there appear to be a lot of folks upset with Disney... I just don't see it that way. Having more choices (choosing what to pay for) is generally a good thing for consumers. Netflix is evolving into a content company vs a distribution company. Content owners are becoming technically savvy enough to distribute their own content, they won't need a Netflix. Netflix saw this coming years ago and were smart to start producing their own content, otherwise they would quickly become irrelevant.

I completed my USA Hockey level 4 coaching class this past weekend in Scottsdale, AZ. A 3 day long event, most of it off-ice in a classroom environment where they teach the USA hockey philosophy of developing young players and some system stuff. It builds on levels 1, 2 and 3. Shane Doan skated with us and talked for an hour or so on special teams to wrap up the conference. If anybody remembers Jonathan Parker (part of the McNabb trade) he was a fellow classmate, we talked a bit about his time in Rochester. The system stuff was interesting, in summary it's all about quick transitions. On a turnover, it takes the (now) defensive team about 2-2.5 seconds to take a defensive posture. If you can move the puck up ice quickly after a turnover, you'll have a distinct advantage. However, the only way to do that is by passing the puck... whether it's long stretch passes, or a series of short passes, it doesn't matter.... but you can't do that simply by skating the puck up ice.. that takes too long, giving the opposition time to setup defensively. Maybe Bylsma leaned too heavily on the stretch passes, but he wasn't too far off base with his philosophy of getting the puck up ice quickly (passing it vs skating). That's something that needs to happen in any system for it to be successful.

So what's the difference between what Netflix is doing and a Cable company who charges you for channels you never watch? Netflix is charging me for Disney content and I have no choice to opt-out of Disney programming and reduce my monthly fee.

Same. I absolutely hate the yellow toilet seat collar around the neck. It looked terrible on the Bills jerseys a few years ago and it will look terrible as a hockey jersey. It would look so much cleaner if it was just blue all the way around. I will not be buying one for that reason alone.

Netflix was paying a large sum for Disney content, and passing that cost on to their customers. Without that cost, Netflix should drop their fees, but likely won't because they don't have to. They won't begin removing content until 2020. "U.S. Netflix members will have access to Disney films on the service through the end of 2019, including all new films that are shown theatrically through the end of 2018.' I like what Disney is doing, they want control over the distribution of their own content. It's what they should've done to begin with (like HBO), they just needed to catch up technically. Personally, my kids are getting older and don't care to watch Disney stuff on Netflix anyway, so why should I have to pay Netflix for that content (indirectly) if I don't watch it?

he's not playing in Buffalo to start the season... maybe if he tears up the AHL, but I think he still has lots of learning to do.