Eleven

Well, it was a different question last time, but I still voted O'Reilly:

I don't know how I did this, but I nailed one of them. Even checked my work. Must have been burned into my brain long ago or something.

Question 1: Foligno is such a nice sentimental favorite, and Briere was magic so many times, and O'Reilly was a Conn Smythe winner in his prime, if he's even peaked yet. Tough calls there. And Peca could crush people and still score 20+ regularly, too. It's probably going to be O'Reilly because he is/was a Conn Smythe winner in his prime. That's kind of a big deal. Question 2: Dumont and Vaive is another tough choice. Leaning Vaive; will sleep on it whenever my body decides to actually let me sleep tonight. Question 3 is the only easy one. It's going to be Kozlov.

That's a nice tandem.

What a complete idiot.

Here's one: https://www.buffalobills.com/video/highlight-john-brown-makes-one-handed-grab He threw a good ball in the playoffs too!

Miller would have won about ninety million Vezinas in Crozier's era. Maybe even a hundred million.

If saying that everyone should be working together for a cure has become unacceptably political, well, we (as people, not as SabreSpace) have really crossed a line. But thank you for the explanation; I do not share the same view, but thank you nevertheless.

Yeah, someone else had mentioned Edwards.

Why? Many of them were not political, such as the posts I responded to and my response to them.

Why we're not sharing research is the real question. This is so stupid.

Hold up there; the slug was a Quinn product.

It's actually recognition of false nostalgia for Crozier/Edwards/etc., combined with the recognition that offenses in 2005 are different than they were in 1970, that would lead one to vote Miller. It's pretty much the exact opposite of recency bias. Those guys were pretty great goalies. They also didn't play against anyone nearly as fast as Ovechkin or Crosby. And who is to say whether Miller would have been a butterfly goalie (he wasn't here, anyway--he was a hybrid) or not? And why would that matter?

Hey. I have friends who have a Festivus party every year. It's usually a really good time. Especially the airing of grievances--and yes, that actually happens, but via unsigned notes folded and dropped in a bowl.

The nostalgia for Crozier et al. notwithstanding, there is no way, in their primes, that they would have stopped the offenses Miller had to face, in his prime.

You are correct. Frank will.

It's in the episode itself. Festivus was born from Frank's violence in a toy store, wherein he was trying to buy a doll for his son. The use of the word "doll" was especially funny, but not sufficiently punctuated with recorded laughter.

Isn't that easier? He's waiting for Adam Silver to make a decision.

That was Knox's best catch of the season. Also, for me, I give a QB 40 games to show me what he is. I've liked a lot of what I see from Allen, but I'm not ready to deem him a "franchise QB" and I'm certainly not ready to place him above Cam Newton.

I live alone, and my hair isn't really suited to the #2 clipper treatment. Plus the part that's bugging me the most is the back of my neck.

That reveals an alarming amount of optimism for a Sabres fan.

Even the article says that. Curbside pickup and delivery only. No haircuts for us ?

I only had time to check the first of those trades, and it was part of a larger series of deals. And on top of that, Botterill doesn't get my benefit of the doubt.

Detroit and Vancouver made similar moves in the sixth round of that draft and picked up sweeteners. Buffalo did not. Yes, once again, Botterill was a patsy, and many of us were scratching our heads at the time it happened. Some vague "Toronto will do us a favor later" sentiment isn't actual value. Now, in the pantheon of Botterill screwups, that probably was the least important, but a screwup it was.

I do like the first two of those. (Yes, that was on purpose.)