Jump to content

Some questions to start the season Part I

LabattBlue

By LabattBlue
in The Aud Club

  

82 members have voted

  1. 1. Which NHL rookie will play the most games with the Sabres this season?

    • Gerbe
      2
    • Kennedy
      48
    • Myers
      17
    • Weber
      1
    • Ennis
      1

  2. 2. How many goals does Vanek score?

    • 20-29
      1
    • 30-39
      15
    • 40-49
      39
    • 50+
      14

  3. 3. Who will have the most fighting majors?

    • Rivet
      8
    • Montador
      40
    • Gaustad
      10
    • Kaleta
      11

Recommended Posts

SabresFanInRochester Fourth Liner

SabresFanInRochester

Posted
Posted

Great questions -- that last one was scary, though! We really don't have a fighter.

 

I think Myers is the real deal and will get almost a full season in Buffalo -- 72 games.

 

Vanek will net over 50 -- Okay, 57 to be exact, to eclipse his first 100 point season, and finish a +23.

 

I picked Rivet for the most fighting minutes. I think the fights will limited, and any started will be our D clearing the crease for Miller. I know that scenario doesn't happen as much as two forwards dropping mitts as soon as the puck is dropped. I don't see Montador on the ice that much, and Goose will drop the gloves a few times, but not as much.

 

Go Sabres! Saturday cannot come quick enough!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HockeyTruth Prospect

HockeyTruth

Posted
Posted

I voted Kennedy, 50+ and Montador.

 

Personally, I think Ruff really likes Kennedy at Center and if Stafford or Clarke don't impress early, they could find themselves on the 4th line or in the pressbox.

I don't want to nitpick but this isn't an election you can't vote for a result, you're trying to predict a result.

 

On your other comment, neither Stafford or MacArthur play center, if Kennedy takes ice time at center he'll be taking it from Gaustad.

Which wouldn't hurt because we aren't going to get much offensive production from a line centered by Gaustad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tom webster First Liner

tom webster

Posted
Posted

I don't want to nitpick but this isn't an election you can't vote for a result, you're trying to predict a result.

 

On your other comment, neither Stafford or MacArthur play center, if Kennedy takes ice time at center he'll be taking it from Gaustad.

Which wouldn't hurt because we aren't going to get much offensive production from a line centered by Gaustad.

 

I voted in order for my "vote" to count in the poll. But thanks for your concern.

 

I'm sorry, I assumed that posters would know that Kennedy playing center would result in Roy moving to wing and thus dropping Stafford or Mac out of the rotation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HockeyTruth Prospect

HockeyTruth

Posted
Posted

I voted in order for my "vote" to count in the poll. But thanks for your concern.

 

I'm sorry, I assumed that posters would know that Kennedy playing center would result in Roy moving to wing and thus dropping Stafford or Mac out of the rotation.

What?

Kennedy would result in Roy being moved to the wing?

Since when?

 

Let me ask you this...are you aware that this is strictly something that somehow took hold on forums and that you will not hear this from anyone attached to hockey?

 

Don't bet on this happening because you see and hear people unconsciously repeating this dibble.

You'll lose, they won't be moving Roy to wing when Kennedy gets put in the lineup just because a bunch of novice fans decided this makes sense.

 

I laughed when I read this as if it is hockey 'knowledge'.

"I assumed that posters would know that Kennedy playing center would result in Roy moving to wing and thus dropping Stafford or Mac out of the rotation."

This is a complete lack of knowledge.

 

 

On the voting thing... saying that this is a poll doesn't change anything, we already know it's a poll. What you don't seem to understand is that all polls are not voting polls. We could have a poll asking if it's going to rain tomorrow, when you answer that poll you aren't VOTING. No one votes on whether it rains and no one VOTES on how many goals Vanek will score! You are attempting to predict not VOTE.

 

Definition:

a collective expression of will as inferred from a number of votes

Example

When you vote in an election, you are attempting to will the candidate into office by majority vote.

 

But you cannot will it to rain and you cannot will Vanek to score 60 goals.

You are an observer making a forecast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
korab rules Second Liner

korab rules

Posted
Posted

What?

Kennedy would result in Roy being moved to the wing?

Since when?

 

Let me ask you this...are you aware that this is strictly something that somehow took hold on forums and that you will not hear this from anyone attached to hockey?

 

Don't bet on this happening because you see and hear people unconsciously repeating this dibble.

You'll lose, they won't be moving Roy to wing when Kennedy gets put in the lineup just because a bunch of novice fans decided this makes sense.

 

I laughed when I read this as if it is hockey 'knowledge'.

 

This is a complete lack of knowledge.

 

 

On the voting thing...you saying that this is a poll doesn't change anything, we already know. We could have a poll asking if it's going to rain tomorrow, when you answer that poll you aren't VOTING. No one votes on whether it rains and no one VOTES on how many goals Vanek will score! You are attempting to predict not VOTE.

 

Definition:

a collective expression of will as inferred from a number of votes

Example

When you vote in an election, you are attempting to will the candidate into office by majority vote.

 

But you cannot will it to rain and you cannot will Vanek to score 60 goals.

You are an observer making a forecast.

 

And the true colors come out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HockeyTruth Prospect

HockeyTruth

Posted
Posted

And the true colors come out.

They are no colors involved just statements of fact.

Where do these ideas get elevated to 'knowledge'?

You tell me.

 

Where on earth does a fan get the strange idea that another fan lacks the 'knowledge' that Roy will be moved to the wing?

Or that when Kennedy is put in it is a must that Stafford or MacArthur is out of the lineup?

 

Show me your true colors by being able to account for that nonsense as being knowledge.

 

Are we talking about hockey or Cindy Lauper with this true colors crap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
korab rules Second Liner

korab rules

Posted
Posted

I voted Kennedy, because I haven't seen enough of Myers to make an informed opinion, but I was impressed by how well he skates. Wow, he is graceful! Unbelievable how well he skates for a guy his size. With this organization's history of wanting players in general and defensemen specifically to season in the minors, I see him being sent back down after his nine game tryout. All bet are off, though, if he plays lights out in his exhibition.

 

I also voted 50+ for Vanek - I think he really shines this year, and LR finally gives him elite minutes.

 

Montador wasn't brought in for his defensive prowess. He knows what he needs to do if he wants to fend off the young bucks. The only thing that may nudge him out of the top spot is limited playing time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
korab rules Second Liner

korab rules

Posted
Posted

They are no colors involved just statements of fact.

Where do these ideas get elevated to 'knowledge'?

You tell me.

 

Where on earth does a fan get the strange idea that another fan lacks the 'knowledge' that Roy will be moved to the wing?

Or that when Kennedy is put in it is a must that Stafford or MacArthur is out of the lineup?

 

Show me your true colors by being able to account for that nonsense as being knowledge.

 

Are we talking about hockey or Cindy Lauper with this true colors crap?

 

Those weren't my assertions, and I don't feed trolls KKK666, Guru, or whatever your name is. I'm done with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HockeyTruth Prospect

HockeyTruth

Posted
Posted

Those weren't my assertions, and I don't feed trolls KKK666, Guru, or whatever your name is. I'm done with you.

It's you that replied, I have zero interest in initiating any conversation with you.

So if you hold true to what you are saying you'll be doing me a favor.

 

I won't count on it because you seem to get too much of a juvenile thrill out of sticking your nose into conversation you later claim to have no interest in.

 

It gives you the chance to use the word troll, yipee yipee, you can't go without that big thrill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...