Who Will Have a Better Season - Bills or Sabres?

[WildCard]

1 hour ago, N S said:

That blue background is horrible.  I can't read a single word.

Same I hate it

[dudacek]

2 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I don’t really want to relitigate the tank, but I will emphatically disagree with the assertion that it has worked so far.  

As for the Bills, I think the D will be much improved and there is reason to believe that both offensive play calling and QB play will be improved too.  

Sorry if this is relitigating, but does this change three years from now if Dahlin is battling for  the Norris and Eichel the Art Ross, as the team is a point behind Toronto in the overall league standings? Or six years from now when the same things are occurring?

The immediate goal of the tank was to acquire elite talent available nowhere else other than the top of the draft. That talent has yet to show it is elite. Does the tank become a success when/if it does?

[SwampD]

13 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I don’t really want to relitigate the tank, but I will emphatically disagree with the assertion that it has worked so far.  

As for the Bills, I think the D will be much improved and there is reason to believe that both offensive play calling and QB play will be improved too.  

Agree on both.

[nfreeman]

The tank commenced in 2013.  If the Sabres aren’t league contenders until 2022, I don’t see how anyone could think the tank was a success. 

 

[WildCard]

Just now, nfreeman said:

The tank commenced in 2013.  If the Sabres aren’t league contenders until 2022, I don’t see how anyone could think the tank was a success. 

 

Sheary - Strome - Bennett

[dudacek]

9 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

The tank commenced in 2013.  If the Sabres aren’t league contenders until 2022, I don’t see how anyone could think the tank was a success. 

 

Just to make sure I understand you, if Eichel and Dahlin lead the team to the finals in 2022, the tank was not a success because it took too long to bear fruit?

Edited August 13, 2018 by dudacek

[SwampD]

8 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Just so I understand you, if Eichel and Dahlin lead the team to the finals in 2022, the tank was not a success because it took too long to bear fruit?

Is Dahlin a result of the Tank?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Just to make sure I understand you, if Eichel and Dahlin lead the team to the finals in 2022, the tank was not a success because it took too long to bear fruit?

Rome was built on a shorter timetable.

A rebuild would have been a better strategy and would probably not have taken as long.  And definately would not have tasted as badly as the tank being rammed down our throats.

[nfreeman]

8 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Just to make sure I understand you, if Eichel and Dahlin lead the team to the finals in 2022, the tank was not a success because it took too long to bear fruit?

Well, to be precise, if the Sabres don’t emerge as league contenders until 2022, then IMHO the tank was a failure because it cost 9 years of everyone’s hockey life.  

There were quicker routes available that featured much less misery and many more playoff games along the way.  

[dudacek]

7 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Well, to be precise, if the Sabres don’t emerge as league contenders until 2022, then IMHO the tank was a failure because it cost 9 years of everyone’s hockey life.  

There were quicker routes available that featured much less misery and many more playoff games along the way.  

Does that change if the tank-built core wins a Stanley Cup?

[nfreeman]

30 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Does that change if the tank-built core wins a Stanley Cup?

No. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

2 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

No. 

This will always be the correct answer.  Even if the Sabres turn into the mid-late 70's Canadiens, or early-mid(ish) Islanders, or mid-late 80's Oilers.

[Hoss]

How dare I forget just how far anti-tankers will go to make sure the tank can never be defined a success.

[Randall Flagg]

The thing is, tank "success" has already been redefined, and we ain't even out of last place. 

I've gone back and read the polls and posts. The third full season post-tank was going to, by literally everyone's standards, involve playoff series wins. I posted it. You posted it. He posted it. She posted it. It was the consensus belief. I have posts in the past where I actually pull the quotes out, and it's pretty amazing. 

But that didn't happen, we finished in last place. So by our own original definitions, the tank failed. We are the worst team in the league going into the fourth full season after the tank ended. 

Jack might be an important piece to a cup team. I'd like to see him get within 15 points of the playoffs for the first time in his career before I fully believe that, though, and if and when he finally does, the things that will have contributed to that team winning a cup will have been so far removed from the decisions made 2013-2015 that giving that success to the tank rather than the GM who cleaned up the mess of the tank and rebuilt the franchise depth destroyed by the tank will look profoundly silly. 

[Wyldnwoody44]

I tend to agree, at this point, finishing 31st with the "tankfruit" means the tank did what it was supposed to do, get us eichel, and nothing more than that. We are so far removed, and with new management, it's almost impossible to correlate the now with the then, it's basically apples and oranges at this point. The tank was a success for what it was intended, but a failure in making the team good. 

 

We added new shiny pieces this year, idk if they'll fit together, but something has to break eventually. 

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, Hoss said:

How dare I forget just how far anti-tankers will go to make sure the tank can never be defined a success.

If this is directed at my assertion that a cup 9 years post-tank doesn't mean that the tank was a success, Imma make like Larry David and flip it around on ya:  if they stink for 9 years post-tank, and then have success, and you regard that as proof of a successful tank -- then it's the pro-tankers (or some of them, anyway) who will never admit that the tank was a failure.

 

[WildCard]

3 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

If this is directed at my assertion that a cup 9 years post-tank doesn't mean that the tank was a success, Imma make like Larry David and flip it around on ya:  if they stink for 9 years post-tank, and then have success, and you regard that as proof of a successful tank -- then it's the pro-tankers (or some of them, anyway) who will never admit that the tank was a failure.

 

 

1 hour ago, Randall Flagg said:

The thing is, tank "success" has already been redefined, and we ain't even out of last place. 

I've gone back and read the polls and posts. The third full season post-tank was going to, by literally everyone's standards, involve playoff series wins. I posted it. You posted it. He posted it. She posted it. It was the consensus belief. I have posts in the past where I actually pull the quotes out, and it's pretty amazing. 

Where's this thread you speak of, Flagg?

[...]

16 hours ago, WildCard said:

There are 9 QBs taken in the 1st round that didn't start their rookie year in the last 20 years

 

MY EYES! Oh, the horror...

[Taro T]

47 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

If this is directed at my assertion that a cup 9 years post-tank doesn't mean that the tank was a success, Imma make like Larry David and flip it around on ya:  if they stink for 9 years post-tank, and then have success, and you regard that as proof of a successful tank -- then it's the pro-tankers (or some of them, anyway) who will never admit that the tank was a failure.

 

IMHO, the ONLY way the tank remotely becomes successful is if the Sabres have at least of Chicago-like run of both competitiveness AND success (read:championships).  Anything less could have been matched by restocking the scouting staffs & NOT blowing up the entire roster.

2 separate times under Regier the team was brought to Stanley Cup caliber w/out having FULLY torn down to the studs.  We're about due for what would've been that next brief run had the Tank not been implemented.

And, FTR, though they were an accidental benefit of the Tank, IMHO both Mittelstadt & Dahlin are fruits of the Tank.

 

[WildCard]

The problem for me is, and I would imagine most tankers feel the same way, is that the tank did exactly what it was designed to do, and judging it based off of anything other than that is just nonsense in my opinion. It was part of a rebuild effort, and it was the only successful part of it.

38 minutes ago, ... said:

MY EYES! Oh, the horror...

Seriously though, that thing is an abomination. Say it with me, we want dark backrounds and bright font! please

Edited August 13, 2018 by WildCard

[Weave]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

If this is directed at my assertion that a cup 9 years post-tank doesn't mean that the tank was a success, Imma make like Larry David and flip it around on ya:  if they stink for 9 years post-tank, and then have success, and you regard that as proof of a successful tank -- then it's the pro-tankers (or some of them, anyway) who will never admit that the tank was a failure.

 

 

Yup.  9 years is the definition of stretching out the definition of success.  That timeline is nearly twice the length of the average NHL career.

 

2 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

The thing is, tank "success" has already been redefined, and we ain't even out of last place. 

I've gone back and read the polls and posts. The third full season post-tank was going to, by literally everyone's standards, involve playoff series wins. I posted it. You posted it. He posted it. She posted it. It was the consensus belief. I have posts in the past where I actually pull the quotes out, and it's pretty amazing. 

But that didn't happen, we finished in last place. So by our own original definitions, the tank failed. We are the worst team in the league going into the fourth full season after the tank ended. 

Jack might be an important piece to a cup team. I'd like to see him get within 15 points of the playoffs for the first time in his career before I fully believe that, though, and if and when he finally does, the things that will have contributed to that team winning a cup will have been so far removed from the decisions made 2013-2015 that giving that success to the tank rather than the GM who cleaned up the mess of the tank and rebuilt the franchise depth destroyed by the tank will look profoundly silly. 

 

And BOOM!

[Sabres Fan in NS]

3 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

The thing is, tank "success" has already been redefined, and we ain't even out of last place. 

I've gone back and read the polls and posts. The third full season post-tank was going to, by literally everyone's standards, involve playoff series wins. I posted it. You posted it. He posted it. She posted it. It was the consensus belief. I have posts in the past where I actually pull the quotes out, and it's pretty amazing. 

But that didn't happen, we finished in last place. So by our own original definitions, the tank failed. We are the worst team in the league going into the fourth full season after the tank ended. 

Jack might be an important piece to a cup team. I'd like to see him get within 15 points of the playoffs for the first time in his career before I fully believe that, though, and if and when he finally does, the things that will have contributed to that team winning a cup will have been so far removed from the decisions made 2013-2015 that giving that success to the tank rather than the GM who cleaned up the mess of the tank and rebuilt the franchise depth destroyed by the tank will look profoundly silly. 

This post clearly shows why the tank was a horrible decision, if for no other reason that it lead to even more horrible decisions by a GM that set the team back even further in the first attempt at the rebuild, which was also an epic failure.

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, N S said:

This post clearly shows why the tank was a horrible decision, if for no other reason that it lead to even more horrible decisions by a GM that set the team back even further in the first attempt at the rebuild, which was also an epic failure.

So you admit the rebuild and the tank are two separate things

[Sabres Fan in NS]

1 minute ago, WildCard said:

So you admit the rebuild and the tank are two separate things

They are so closely related that I view them as the same event, especially the way both were attempted.  

I think we have gone over this before, but I can't remember.  Yup.  I am old(er).

[Hoss]

3 minutes ago, WildCard said:

So you admit the rebuild and the tank are two separate things

This is something people really struggle to grasp. The tank is PART of a rebuild, not a rebuild itself.