MattPie

Except for my, and Vodka Bottle's, arguments, you mean.

I'm still not sure if you're serious or trolling.

Indubitably.

Of course, sorry about being so self-centered.

Except for my posts, you mean.

The Habs picked Galenychuk at #3 in 2012. They had a good team in 2011 and 2013 but they stunk up the ice in 2012. Fun fact, Grigs was projected #3 in that draft (according to Wikipedia). Preds picked Seth Jones #4 in 2013 and had the 11 pick last year. The Rangers do seem to break the mold, but that team for the most part goes the way Lundvquist does (pick #205 in 2000, BTW). Let's not pretend those former two have been consistently good for a long time.

That's a fair point, I really thought about leaving the life stuff out but being sleep deprived I left it in. :) But there is truth there: I have a friend that likes to say, "when a friendship is consistently more trouble or a negative factor in my life than the benefit I derive from it, there's no reason to continue it." I feel like some of the posters here are in that situation with the Sabres. I've watched (in some form) every game this season because I still enjoy watching. If that weren't the case, I wouldn't watch and I don't think anyone would blame me. Why devote something like 240 hours of the year to something that you hate doing (that is supposed to be entertaining)? Sure, some of the jerks might call the folks that disappeared the last two a bandwagon fan but screw them.

Please let this season be over before we have more ridiculous anti-tank ideas. - Move the draft lottery out a year: teams will just "tank" anyways, since they know there will be very good players at the top of every draft. Do you really think that the Sabres would have done something different last year? Or even this year? At best it throws a little variability at the scenario. At worst, a team that suddenly gets good (playoffs, even) from one year to the next still gets a great draft pick at the end of the year. - Loser tourney for seeding. You'd see some hardcore tanking from the bubble teams during the regular season. Realistically there will be a few teams that figure just missing the playoffs this year and having a great shot at McDavid (because they're the best of the non-playoff teams) is a good plan. Essentially, you'll consigning a group of teams to be perennially bad; the reward for having a terrible team is getting to pick 12th-14th where you're getting at best player that will be coin-flip to ever seriously play in the NHL. If you're happy with the concept of having teams that are bad and will always be bad, this a perfect plan. Most sensible people realize this is a recipe for having teams go bankrupt. - The no-trades for futures is an interesting concept, but I'm not sure how if solves these issues. The Sabres could have traded players away for the last couple years not for picks, but guys that have just been drafted and wouldn't be playing in the NHL anyway, so we'd be in exactly the same spot in terms of personnel. Except lots of trades don't happen and more guys end up walking in FA, further hurting bad teams who don't have assets to spare. Suck it up, there are bad teams every year. The Sabres a slightly worse than the average these last two years but I'm sick and tired of hearing the whining about it. This too will pass, and if this is really such a terrible thing in your life, you need to get outside and get some perspective on life's priorities.

Byfuglien didn't mean to fall on him with his stick across the back of his head; he was trying to hold himself up so he didn't fall on top of the Rangers player.

The guy is a failure of an evil genius if he doesn't have some sort of mind control or robot to turn the other key.

Sorry if I missed this, Deveaux, formerly of the Laffs, slashed the crap out of a guy in warmups in the Swede League. I have no idea what he was thinking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8vLuKmKZ-I

Fixed.

The home-away color system is mandated by the NHL, so there's not much the Sabres can do other than play more games opposite (I'm not sure if there's a limit on the number of games they're allowed to do that). If you like, discuss royal blue vs. the current midnight blue. I don't have strong feelings either way, but I wouldn't mind going back to royal blue. I don't mind the silver either. :)

I'm not a fan either, but I saw a few skits around Christmas time that were a riot.

Speaking of spectacular "flame" outs...

I've heard he's coming for us.

I didn't look at the contract status, so I'm sure you're right. No, wait: Chad Johnson!

The teams that are already in might start resting players, I think that's the theory.

I feel that way about most of Texas. :)

He's our chief Jets correspondent since the trade.

Big city, good food, fancy clubs, nice lake, lots of women who adore hockey players, yeah, that sounds terrible. :) :)

There was an article in Motorcyclist around 10 years ago that found the same thing. Look below for the whole helmet-stiffness-acceleration discussion, but essentially the expensive helmets were focused on managing high-energy collisions which meant they were less than ideal at managing the much more common low-mid energy impacts. I think hockey helmets are primarily, as others have said, for keeping sharp, hard, and/or fast moving objects from cracking the skull. I haven't picked up a hockey helmet in a very long time, but from the looks of them on the TV it doesn't look like they have the space to manage the energy in head-other player or head-immovable object collision. Maybe we can resurrect that long thread about helmets (and the guy that refused to believe that wrapping a soft layer on the outside would help) if we want more detail, but in essence every helmet is compromise in terms of concussions. The designer has to look at the space he has to work with, the weight of the head, and the expected velocity the head will be stopped from. Without getting too math-y, the longer the distance the head has to slow down, the better; that's why the great-gazoo helmets are generally more protective. The issue is, if you can only really optimize for a narrow range of velocity. If a helmet is ideal for stopping a head from 25 MPH to 0, if the head hits at 30 MPH it will compress all the foam and contact the plastic (bad news). The less thought of issue is if the head hits at 10 MPH, the foam isn't going to compress all the way so the head experiences more force than would be ideal (it's being stopped in a shorter distance, so the force goes up). As adults, we often have the option to look stupid or risk being stupid for a long time. :(

Drop it down a gear, friend, those are some strong words.

1: Looking at trade down from Hannifin to #4-5 and picking up a player in the process, I'd guess. 2: Austin something-or-other is supposed to be good. 3: I don't think anyone is ready to tank another year. At best, something like the Toronto/Arizona tank where they try real hard and sell off stuff at the deadline to nosedive. That being said, I don't think many fans that are looking at the long game would support selling assets this summer to get better for next season. To expand on #3: ROR. If it were 3 years from now and Sabres were contenders, I'd consider making a push for him. As it is (unless I'm mixed up), he's on a contract until next year then will be UFA. I have little confidence that he'll stay for anything less than top-dollar regardless of whether his play warrants it. I'm not sure he'd sign even if the team did offer top-dollar to see if he might get better offers in FA. He's a gamble.

I'm not nearly as comfortable as you. :) LW seems OK, and C (assuming McEichel) looks good, but RW seems to have holes. Right now, there are 3 guys on the team listed at RW: Gionta, Kaleta, and D'Amigo. The Sabres are counting on a couple of our overstock Centers and kids can step in. I don't see a first-line shooter in the overstocks, so the Sabres are really counting one of the kids to be a 1st-line talent. Cross your fingers.