nfreeman

You have got to be kidding me.

But most people (including me and many others here who have criticized Dareus) don't think the act of smoking dope is immoral -- our issue is with the fact that he knew he'd be hurting his team if he smoked dope and did it anyway. That's why Dareus wasn't innocent. If the suspension risk is gone, the problem is gone. That's why I was questioning (perhaps inarticulately) qwk's post.

But if there's no punishment, does it matter whether or not he's innocent?

You don't need to sign a legal form, but you do need to keep your hands to yourself unless and until it becomes clear that you have been invited to do otherwise.

Well, I agree that it's unrealistic, but not that it's unfair. As it currently stands, the Bills are completely hosed regarding that $32MM -- and it will be even worse the next time Dareus gets caught (I think the next drug suspension is a full season). How is that fair? As for forfeiting part of future salary/bonus -- that would work economically but I think in practice it would result in the player in question having a pretty poor attitude at work, which the teams would like to avoid. I wouldn't be surprised if pot suspensions and bonus givebacks were both part of the next CBA negotiation.

BTW: If I'm reading this: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/marcell-dareus-7718/correctly, the Bills have paid Dareus a cool $32MM in bonuses -- and I don't think he lost a dime of that for his suspension. It probably won't happen, but I'd like to see the next CBA provide for all bonuses to be escrowed and paid at the end of a contract (or when a team cuts or trades a player), with proportional reductions, plus penalties, for suspensions, showing up out of shape, etc.

You're really going to keep going with this, aren't you? At first I thought you were joking.

This is getting a bit overwrought, IMHO. DDB is an experienced and accomplished coach. Reino is a very young player with a ton of potential, but he's far from an established star. He's also not a particularly good skater. And, he's a guy who the team is relying on to produce offense -- but the team has scored 4 goals in their 3 losses. I don't think DDB wanting Reino to move his feet and play faster is a-tall a crazy thing for DDB to say.

Well, how about this, then: Miami is 3-4, the Bills are 4-3, Miami has a better win (Pittsburgh) than the Bills do and Miami beat the Bills convincingly. With that factual background, I don't see how you can say the the Bills should've beaten Miami.

I just don't agree with the "they should have beaten XYZ team" concept. The Bills were soundly outplayed by the Jets and the Dolphins, and deserved both losses. And the Bills have been lousy for a generation, and beat a few crappy teams this year in games that were close in the 4th quarter. They aren't a good enough team to think that any game is a gimme. They sure could've used the fat guy they gave $100MM to last year, innit?

So does this mean Moulson is up with ROR and Okposo?

If you're tired about hearing about the dearth of due process in these cases, the solution is not to shout down the other side -- it's to help improve a terrible situation -- which you can do, at least, by not pretending that the problem doesn't exist. As to whether the problem exists, and its scope -- what is your response to the numerous false accusation incidents that have received national attention in recent years? (Auburn, Columbia, UVA, Findlay, etc.). In those cases there was nothing remotely resembling due process. Leaving aside the question of whether your "not having any reason to believe" other colleges handle these matters differently from UB has any kind of analytical significance (and, BTW, the new "Title IX Coordinator" -- there's a compelling use of our tax dollars -- recently declared that the reason that sexual assault data at Albany didn't come close to supporting her views on the prevalence thereof was because students were under-reporting assaults), even the process you describe at UB, which you seem to feel represents good due process, is deeply flawed. Not having the right to cross-examine the accuser or to be represented by counsel at the hearing, or to introduce evidence relating to a prior sexual history between the accuser and the accused or a history of other similar accusations, are simply insurmountable problems that result in a lack of due process. The evidentiary standard is also a critical issue -- and I would bet that UB utilizes the president's favored "preponderance" standard, which is really no standard a-tall.

Yikes. Sorry about this 11. As for whether it's relevant to the Kane situations: IMHO it is, for the exact reason someone said upthread: false accusations happen quite often, whether it's part of a shakedown, because some foolish person wants to be an SJW, or otherwise. Rape is a terrible crime, and lesser sexual assault is absolutely not OK either -- but the unfortunate occurrence of those offenses throughout history does not justify a presumption of guilt whenever a woman accuses a man of something. It's also with noting that if 11 were a college student and this happened, he'd be facing a high risk of significant disciplinary action, with no ability to cross-examine the complainant, call witnesses, be represented by counsel, etc.

Is that Halloween, or just Tuesday?

Here's a disappointment: Vesey is playing on the Rangers' top line and has 2 goals tonight.

Well, we're well into beating a dead horse here, but to be clear, I did indeed compliment his post, because I was agreeing with him that a certain group of posters was panicking. I was joking in using the word "incisive" because that seems to me to be a bit over-generous when describing his use of the word "hormonal." Having said that, I still think forum decorum (which really isn't bad, btw) isn't breached by telling posters that they are panicking -- i.e. reacting emotionally, and not rationally, to an early loss and demanding a new coach -- but it is breached by calling someone dishonest. I.e. I think "you're reacting emotionally and not rationally" is not on the same level as "you're lying." The first implies a mistake; the 2nd implies intentional wrongdoing.

I certainly did not mean it in the "like a woman" context. And how is it beside the point? Look at your post, including the parts of my post that you bolded. Was your point in making your post that I misused the word "incisive" (leaving alone the fact that I was obviously joking in using that word)? Was it not to equate my (indirectly) calling a group of posters "hormonal" (ironically enough, because they were panicking after an early-season loss) with qwk calling me dishonest?

Do you think calling someone "hormonal" is on the same level of offensiveness as calling him/her dishonest?

...or maybe I just don't think that Eichel is the kind of transformative player that lifts a team out of a tank. Like many children who think they know everything, you need to internalize the fact that those who disagree with you aren't necessarily bigots or liars or scoundrels.

Qwk -- I'm hoping you meant "premature" or "half-baked" here, as your word (even when spelled correctly) implies dishonesty. In any case, the 2 of you make a more-than-fair point -- IF you can reasonably believe that Jackie boy is on the same level as those other dudes. I kinda doubt it, and the evidence we have points much more to a potential all-star-level player than to a Crosby-McDavid generational talent, but certainly the jury's still out.

You and others are probably right that I am jumping the gun here. But after years of misery and a summer of hopenchange, we are looking hard at 1-4 to start the season. That is a poop sandwich, no matter how you slice it. And while some here think that all we need is the right fancystats-based coach to turn the Sabres into a contender, I continue to believe that once the stench of losing permeates a franchise, it takes a Jim Kelly or a Connor McDavid or a Bill Parcells (or, perhaps, Mike Babcock) to eradicate it and right the ship -- i.e. it takes a commodity so precious and rare as to make it foolish to rely on the slim possibility of obtaining it. And when that commodity doesn't arrive -- which is usually the case -- you're just nowhere for a very, very long time.

Well, Vancouver was picked by many real NHL observers to be bottom-5 in the NHL, Montreal was lousy last year without Price, and Calgary was lousy too -- and the Sabres blew 2 third-period leads against them.

I agree that it's early. But history shows that when bubble teams fail early on to bank points that are very bankable, it generally comes back to bite them. Here's a positive note: I went to bed before the 3rd period, but in the 2nd period, Zemgus looked better to me than he has in over a year, and the Zemgus-Moulson-Ennis line created a number of good chances. In an ideal world, that line will start burying those chances and emerge as a respectable 2nd scoring line until Jackie boy and Evander return. I will feel much better if they beat Philly, which is always good for the soul.

And now we get to the reason that many of us disagreed with the tank: it usually doesn't work. Teams can't stink for an extended period, then get a couple of high draft picks, swing a couple of trades, and flip the switch into contender status. The Sabres are 1-3, with losses to 3 likely non-playoff teams (the Habs w/o Price are decidedly non-playoff). If we soberly assess their odds of making the playoffs right now, we have to admit that they are -- what? 25%? 15%? The most likely outcome appears to be 10th-13th place in the EC and out of the playoffs again. And then what? Hope for a FA addition this summer that is a major difference-maker? We're running out of cap space. Hope Risto, Lehner, Eichel and Reino become real NHL stars? Hope! Change! Tank! High picks! Many drank the intoxicating tank Kool-Aid. We're now entering the hangover period. Let's hope it doesn't last 5 years. But it really freaking might.

Losing McCoy is a killer. He is a huge part of the offense. They need to win this game if they are going to make a run at the playoffs.