JJFIVEOH

LOL @ Mayweather and Sharapova.

Good point.

The ESPY's have started off really lame. Might be better off turning on Nova.

:wallbash:

Live feed isn't working for me. Anyobdy else?

Give it a couple of weeks, I'll start a Miller thread. :D

I could just as easily say the Kings were a period a half away from being a candidate for serious offseason reconstuction. Paint it however you like. Teams just don't luck themselves into success like that without some sort of plan and/or knowledge. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Nobody is telling you to do anything any more than you're telling me to do something. Nobody said you need to praise him or that team. They went to two consecutive CF's and won a President's trophy and yet that's not successful to you; that's 'never won anything'. If your definition of success is a Cup win then sports fans are going to be a disappointed bunch because there is a 29:30 chance their season will be a failure. This isn't high school dodgeball. You don't just luck your way into two consecutive CF's and a President's trophy. If that were the case then teams would hire people off the street as GM's. Instead they spend 5,10,15 yars working their way up through the ranks and then get thoroughly vetted before being hired as a GM. I see your points completely but I believe you lack objective reasoning because your thought process is clouded by hatred. I agree 100%.

I'm sorry you can't comprehend the comparison. I wasn't comparing the teams I was comparing your logic that wins apparently don't count in your opinion. The Sabres were successful and you downplayed it by saying they weren't dominant enough so it doesn't count. The Kings were far from dominant in both of their Cup wins in some cases. Darcy could have won a Cup and you would have trashed him for not doing it in 16 games. Darcy wasn't the only GM post-lockout. The Sabres weren't the only fast team post-lockout The Sabres weren't the only team in which the rules applied to. Darcy must have done something right to get to two consecutive CF's and a President's trophy because everybody else was in the same boat. If Darcy had that much success simply by luck then that doesn't say much for the rest of the league, does itk If you don't care, you have a funny way of showing it.

That's not even remotely close to the point I was making. You're downplaying the Sabres success those two years by saying one of those series wasn't dominant enough for you to be satisfied. Using YOUR logic, the Kings must not be good either because they thoroughly got their ###### kicked most of that seies. I can tell by your posts. :P I just don't see the hate. It's a typical excuse used by the haters. Any reasonable person would give Darcy some kind of credit. He was building a speedy team as speed was the trend BEFORE the lockout. Most teams were doing the same thing. Stop coming up with lame reasons to downplay anything he did.

Yup, that would be the same Kings. You proved my point. It ain't always pretty, but they did it. I don't see you saying the Kings aren't successful because they almost lost the first round. You're just taking away from the Sabres success in those two years in a poor attempt to trash Darcy.......... Stop grasping at straws.

President's trophy....... Consecutive conference final appearances....... I can think of about 28 teams that would have loved to have been in that situation. The Kings were one period away from being eliminated in the first round this year, that must mean they're not successful either.

And like Inkman pointed out, the small player label might be just a myth. Some blame needs to be put on the coach as to why some of these sizeable players didn't always play big.

That I can agree with. But I don't think he walked into a successful team.

You could have just said 'no'. But I know that doesn't fit the 'Darcy sucks' narrative. Your 'truth' might hold water if speed wasn't the trend pre-lockout.

Didn't I just say that? :P

I get sick of hearing Darcy 'lucked into it'. Guess what, every team that is successful benefitted by luck at some point. Can't the guy get some credit?

There has to be some kind of balance. If a small team wins the Cup next year teams might start switching to small players. Rules changes can even affect how a team builds its roster. If you stock too many big players and speed becomes the latest trend, you're screwed. And vice versa. It's all about balance. Murray seems to be going large (at least bigger than the Sabres have been) but I don't think his roster is done yet. I want to see what he plans to do as far as forwards after the 2015 draft to say that he is leaning too far either way on the spectrum.

Pretty much all feminine hygiene products and menopause medications. They need to blur out an ass crack because it's bad for the kids to see, but it's OK to talk about embarrassing itches and odors while I'm eating dinner.

I love his peanuts.

Moulson vs Stafford with goal totals projected out to 82 games.

That too.

Educated adults that can't use proper grammar and English when sending Emails. It's bad enough an increasing percentage can't speak it any more, much less type it.

I think you all have it pretty much covered.

Saw that and said the same thing to myself.