DHawerchuk10

Depends on what you mean by decent. By decent do you mean he completed a couple passes, didn't fall down on his own, and didn't cough up the puck every other play? In all seriousness, it was a step in the right direction (I even saw a Tyler Myers body check for the first time this season), but a far cry from where he needs to be. If he needs an example of where needs to be, he only need look at Erik Karlsson. I'd rather Myers be more physically dominating than Karlsson as his frame would suggest, but that Karlsson kid can do it all, and would settle for those type of performances any day of the week from Myers.

An interesting thought, but if Myers needs a certain type of partner to play better, why keep Myers? That is almost like saying "boy we got a good player in Rob Brown, but we better acquire Mario Lemieux so he can score 50 goals again". Given his contract, Myers should be able to be paired with anyone and bring out the best in them, not vice versa. As others have pointed out, Myers main issues primarily haven't been with who he has been paired but rather perceived physical issues (his skating has been atrocious this year) compounded by horrible decision making. Perhaps an undisclosed injury and he is compensating too much? Who knows, but my view on Myers potential wasn't that high to begin with and I didn't think he was all that great the past two years anyway.

While I am not defending Leopold's play at the end of the game, his play in general hasn't been as horrific as Myers. Quite honestly we are hitching our wagon to the wrong player in Myers, as he has regressed quite a bit since his rookie year. And we are not talking about a few game stretch here either, he has been horrendous in his own zone for quite some time now. Everybody wants to let him off the hook cause he is young, but it is quite clear by his play, that he will never become the dominant force that was expected. He might be the weakest player, strength wise, on the team as well. And what good is a 6 foot 8 defenseman if he's as physically intimidating as Phil Housley. Sad to say, but RJ has "lost a step" the past few years. And when compared to his peak back in the early 90's, he's a shell of his former self. I used to love when he used to fade his SCOOOOOOORE to the sound of the horn, but that seems to be a thing of the past, or at least a rarity. His inflection just isn't the same as it was either.

You elude to something very interesting here when pointing out "Bush's years will see to that". Obama takes full advantage of mentioning the "failed policies of the previous 8 years" while hailing the Clinton economy. But if you were to look at pure numbers, the economies shake out to be pretty similar, so I find this comment to be disingenious at best. Mistakes were certainly made in both administrations that led to "bubbles", but the perception of the Bush economy being horrendous is a travesty of poor perception and an ignorant public who conveniently only remembers the housing bust and not their own contribution towards it. Merely questioning that is heresy in most realms, but I am amazed that people swallow this Obama tidbit without question, and conversely don't remember the failing economy at the end of Clinton's administration. Obama would be far more credible/effective if he were to outline the "failed" economic policies of Bush, rather than just generalize about it.

That one statement "And just so I'm not deemed the hippie that I may or may not be, I am very much in favor of people having jobs. I don't care all that much about people earning profits." is absolutely stunning. No profits = no jobs. Where do you think pay and benefits come from? I don't mean any disrespect, but I honestly don't know where you (SwampD) are coming from on that one.

Correction...Dems are all about equal pay. Can't have male escorts making more than female escorts. After all, that would be sexist.

Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong with the tidbit I bolded. Wilson was an internationalist, and could be considered a founding father of modern liberalism. Does that describe modern day Republicans? I think not.

Well said Taro! Well said!

See Taro T's response. These might sound good on the surface, but are highly reactionary. Politiicans don't want to involve themselves with silly things like consequences. There line of thinking is if it sounds good and it solves a symptom, lets put it into action. This way my constituents have the impression I am doing something. Both sides of the political spectrum do it.

Law of unintended consequences my friend. Obviously this wasn't the goal, but it is certainly an outcome. In short, in order to comply with the regulations, businesses have to spend millions of dollars each year to comply with them. This makes it very difficult for others to enter that business as they are laden with these regulatory costs from the git go and have the other issues associated with being a start-up that the big boys do not. Again, high barriers of entry. There is both good and bad regulation. Can you tell the difference? Neither can the government.

Perhaps this is above the scope of this discussion, but unfortunately "regulation" isn't the magic wand lay people interpret it or want it to be. I am not libertarian enough to do away with all regulations, as I don't think that is the right answer, but I think most folks miss the boat on regulation. Over-burdensome regulations raise the barriers of entry, preventing more choice and promoting "too big to fail" scenarios. The financial meltdown was certainly complex, and this is just one factor amongst many that contributed to it. But to expect government regulation to take care of this situation or to solely rely on it to prevent, is just painting yourself as someone who either does not want to look into things past the over-simplification that is doled out in sound bytes or simply can't grasp the deeper root causes. So not sure if its a case that big banks can't be trusted persay. Its more of an agrument as to diversification within the financial industry itself. And remember, regulation is only as good as the regulators, and their knowledge of what is truly going on. It is unreasonable to expect these folks to be "up" on everything, especially the ever changing world of finance.

Duffs certainly isn't overrated if you are an ex-pat. I salivate just thinking about it. There menu used to be more expansive back in the day (late 90's)...at least that is what I remember. The burgers and beef on weck were quite good if you weren't in the wing mood and were there with people who were. Anybody know of Swistons in Tonawanda? Beer, Chili, and Beef on Weck...I believe that is all they serve, and they do it well. Ted's is probably one of the most underrated hot dog places in the country. Everybody I take there from outside the area just falls in love with it, and most have never heard of it unlike places in NY and Chicago. Sahlens is a great dog! As far as chains, I miss Swiss Chalet. That used to be one of the stops when I went back home, but now I need my passport if I want to sample their fine food.

I guess they have a caste system in Canada or where ever you are from. But in the US, you can actually work your way out of being poor. Nobody wants to hear that today because of our "entitled, want everything now" attitudes, but it is as true today as it was yesterday. This whole rich getting richer, poor getting poorer argument is total garbage. The evil rich guy twirling his mustache taking advantage of all us common folk is total fantasy.

Well said Matrix, well said!

Thanks for the welcome. I can't and won't argue that Hasek is in a different stratosphere, that is simply a fact. The 90's were my formative years in attending games, and when Hasek was "ON", that was it, game over ('99 Ottawa series comes to mind amongst many others...you just had that feeling he was going to slam the door and Ottawa stood no chance). Whether fair or unfair, I perceive that a certain fan contigent views Miller in the same light as Hasek, and I have never gotten that same vibe with Miller as I had with Hasek. Outside of obvious clutch shortcomings (Olympics and Winter Classic...both of which, ironically, he played stellar in for the most part), I am always waiting for Miller to "blow it" somehow. And I don't mean "blow it" in the sense of assigning blame directly to him, but more in the sense of knowing a truly elite goalie (in my mind) would have made the proverbial key save. So you are probably right that I am being unfair in my reference point for eliteness, but when you have seen true eliteness in a guy like Hasek, for some reason you get ticked when you perceive others are viewing Miller in that light. Your comparisons for Miller are spot on as well, just wish Miller could get one of those rings Ward and Fleury are sporting. Yes, I feel the same. Sometimes I don't even know why I feel that, but I as I explained above, I tend to get bent out of shape, when Miller gets obsolved from all blame and called elite when the team still loses. Again, thats my perception based on those fans I talk to and argue with, and my limited exposure to some of these forums.

New to the forum here.... Certainly an interesting debate. I have to say I agree with some of what JJFIVEOH has to say in terms of Miller's "elite" ability. I am not intimate with the Sabres locker room, so I wouldn't go as far as saying Miller is a cancer as I have no reference. However, to say Miller is an elite goalie is a real stretch of the definition of "elite". By what measure is he "elite"? Is it based on his slightly above average career statistics? Or is it his inability to come through in the clutch? I concede Miller has his moments, and I don't see better options out there....but he is no sacred cow in my opinion. I will admit my Hasek bias though. As he is the gold standard in which I judge elite ability.