4 Nations Face-Off

[Stoner]

23 minutes ago, Sabres73 said:

Huh? It was obviously showing support for Canada's sovereign independence, and more a shot at Trump that the changed lyric "that only us command" obviously shows. Chantal supports Canada. Great job!

Too lazy to Google it but she also changed the one line of French she sang. At the very beginning. 

[shrader]

4 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Interesting that the article calls it "botched" when it was a deliberate change. Agree with it or not is your choice but it wasn't "botched", she changed it to ONLY US command as an obvious message. This is the first place I've seen it viewed negatively. It's gotten positive reactions overall. 

The parts that were botched were all those extra notes she added in at various parts for no reason whatsoever. 

[shrader]

@Sabres73, so you’re saying that you enjoyed that horrific attempt at stylizing the anthem? I call it an assault on my eardrums. 

[Sabres73]

1 hour ago, shrader said:

@Sabres73, so you’re saying that you enjoyed that horrific attempt at stylizing the anthem? I call it an assault on my eardrums. 

Yes, I thought it was fine, particularly the message it conveyed. 

[Sabres73]

You don't like the message that Canada doesn't want to be annexed by your fascist country? I don't effin' care Mr. Eye Rolls. Sorry about the loss of your democracy.

[Porous Five Hole]

52 minutes ago, Sabres73 said:

You don't like the message that Canada doesn't want to be annexed by your fascist country? I don't effin' care Mr. Eye Rolls. Sorry about the loss of your democracy.

Listen man, we all have nothing but love for Canada.  Literally no one wants to eff with y’all. The vast, vast majority of the board agrees with you.  
But you don’t need to be a 🍆 to the group because some internet stranger eyerolled you about Chantal singing a crappy rendition of your anthem. Regardless of the lyric switch, that was an objectively terrible anthem. No one could sing along because she was a diva.

Don’t let the stupid political noise paint a crappy picture of our love for you. 
🇨🇦🤝🇺🇸

Edited Sunday at 05:28 AM by Porous Five Hole

[shrader]

12 hours ago, Sabres73 said:

Yes, I thought it was fine, particularly the message it conveyed. 

I’m not talking about the lyric change. Did you listen to the rest of the anthem? It was the worst I’ve ever heard other than someone who can’t actually sing. If only I had mentioned that in my first post… oh wait, I did. 

[Ogelthorpe]

12 hours ago, Sabres73 said:

You don't like the message that Canada doesn't want to be annexed by your fascist country? I don't effin' care Mr. Eye Rolls. Sorry about the loss of your democracy.

The United States of America is not a democracy.  It is a constitutional republic. Maybe you should educate yourself

[mjd1001]

53 minutes ago, Ogelthorpe said:

The United States of America is not a democracy.  It is a constitutional republic. Maybe you should educate yourself

To be fair, in most civics and history classes I grew up taking, 'constitutional republic', 'representative republic', 'representative democracy', and 'democratic republic' have all been used to descrive the government of the United states. I think the last two, having 'democracy' and 'democratice' as words in their title, lead one to use 'democracy'.  Its accepted not only socialy, but aslo in academia. 

So while it isn't wrong to say it is a constitiational republic, Democracy is widely accepted, with some derivitive basis in accuracy based on the above.

13 hours ago, Sabres73 said:

You don't like the message that Canada doesn't want to be annexed by your fascist country? I don't effin' care Mr. Eye Rolls. Sorry about the loss of your democracy.

Also, to be fair on the other side of it....the democracy wasn't really lost in the last election.  The country is getting what it, as a form of democracy', chose.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Ogelthorpe said:

The United States of America is not a democracy.  It is a constitutional republic. Maybe you should educate yourself

A Constitutional republic, is a form of democracy. 

[Demoted]

I thought this was a thread about the games instead it's about politics. SHAME!!!

[Crusader1969]

23 minutes ago, Demoted said:

I thought this was a thread about the games instead it's about politics. SHAME!!!

If it wasn't for politics the tournament wouldn't have been what it was. 
 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

On 2/22/2025 at 1:05 PM, Thorner said:

You can call it bigger than Hendersons if you want, too: you’d still be wrong. You are in the vast, VAST minority. Crosby’s is considered bigger, but you don’t agree personally. That’s ok! 

you literally can’t find polling online that doesn’t have the Sid goal vastly ahead 

I live in Halifax - the birthplace of Crosby, MacKinnon and Marchand (we don't brag too much about him .. 😉).  

I can assure you that no one here gives a fiddler's fart about 2010.  1972 was the height of the cold war, so that was a bit different, but similar to today in a way.

[JujuFish]

On 2/21/2025 at 4:17 PM, Thorner said:

It’s not that he isn’t bad if you want to win the cup. It’s that we have proof he’s good enough to be your best player when you win the cup 

“I’m so sad we had to settle for a guy capable of leading the Stanley cup playoffs in points while playing a dominant 2 way game”

Eichel was never dominant here. He has clearly continued to mature his game in Vegas.

That said, McDavid is the best player of the generation, and it's foolish to think we didn't have to settle for Eichel.  Downright lunacy.

On 2/21/2025 at 3:37 PM, klos1963 said:

Right,  you just keep whining about the draft of 10 years ago. 

Ah yes, I keep whining. I made one *single* post about it, which offended you. Now, go search through my post history and tell me when was the last time I whined about it.

 

[French Collection]

11 hours ago, Sabres Fan in NS said:

I live in Halifax - the birthplace of Crosby, MacKinnon and Marchand (we don't brag too much about him .. 😉).  

I can assure you that no one here gives a fiddler's fart about 2010.  1972 was the height of the cold war, so that was a bit different, but similar to today in a way.

Canada had punched above its weight during WW2 but was fading militarily. The Cold War was on and this was an opportunity for our country to contribute. CCCP was a juggernaut in international hockey that we had yet to face on a best on best. To come down to the last 34 seconds in a must win game on foreign soil was a big moment.

[mjd1001]

12 hours ago, JujuFish said:

Eichel was never dominant here. He has clearly continued to mature his game in Vegas.

That said, McDavid is the best player of the generation, and it's foolish to think we didn't have to settle for Eichel.  Downright lunacy.

Ah yes, I keep whining. I made one *single* post about it, which offended you. Now, go search through my post history and tell me when was the last time I whined about it.

 

I agree that McDavid is the best player of the current generation.

I also think that the gap between him and the rest of the players isn't as big as it was with dominant players in the past.

Over a period of 3-5 years, the gap between McDavid and guys like McKinnon, Matthews (playoffs are an issue I know), even where Eichel is now in 2025.....is not as great as it was in the past between the players of the generation.  Gretzky vs all others in the early 80's....Lemieux vs all else in the late 80's. Its 2 guys but Crosby and Ovechkin vs all others in the 2000's.

McDavid rightfully has acheived his title, but the gap between the 'elites' of this generation and the players just below them I think has narrowed.

[Flashsabre]

1 minute ago, mjd1001 said:

I agree that McDavid is the best player of the current generation.

I also think that the gap between him and the rest of the players isn't as big as it was with dominant players in the past.

Over a period of 3-5 years, the gap between McDavid and guys like McKinnon, Matthews (playoffs are an issue I know), even where Eichel is now in 2025.....is not as great as it was in the past between the players of the generation.  Gretzky vs all others in the early 80's....Lemieux vs all else in the late 80's. Its 2 guys but Crosby and Ovechkin vs all others in the 2000's.

McDavid rightfully has acheived his title, but the gap between the 'elites' of this generation and the players just below them I think has narrowed.

The difference between early to mid 80s Gretzky and the rest of the league was one of the biggest in all sports. One year he would have won the scoring title on assists alone.

[mjd1001]

2 minutes ago, Flashsabre said:

The difference between early to mid 80s Gretzky and the rest of the league was one of the biggest in all sports. One year he would have won the scoring title on assists alone.

And while I was a little kid, I watched hockey a lot back then.  Even with that, I seem to think that Mario Lemieux in the middle-to-late 80's was just as much, if not more 'dangerous' than Gretzky was in the early 1980's.

I was always a fan of Gretzky over Lemieux, but when I am honest with myself, I think Lemieux and Hasek are the 2 most dominant NHL players I have ever seen.

[Jorcus]

I just can't help but think how close to Rollerball this is all becoming. Many world leaders with corporate interests using a game that becomes unnecessary violent as a distraction for the masses and increases ratings. I was never down with using sports a proxy for nationalism. Although it generates interest it also generates useless animosity. I am at the point of questioning why anthems should be played at all if for the most part I have to sit through people butchering them night after night. If they went back to doing it on holidays or military appreciation nights I would be fine with that. Soon enough we will be standing for a corporate hymn while the world leaders burn down trees with flame throwers for party fun. Cool uniforms though. 

 

[mjd1001]

1 hour ago, Jorcus said:

I just can't help but think how close to Rollerball this is all becoming. Many world leaders with corporate interests using a game that becomes unnecessary violent as a distraction for the masses and increases ratings. I was never down with using sports a proxy for nationalism. Although it generates interest it also generates useless animosity. I am at the point of questioning why anthems should be played at all if for the most part I have to sit through people butchering them night after night. If they went back to doing it on holidays or military appreciation nights I would be fine with that. Soon enough we will be standing for a corporate hymn while the world leaders burn down trees with flame throwers for party fun. Cool uniforms though. 

 

I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

But that is what nationalism it....dividing groups into 'us' vs 'them' based on the borders you live within that someone else made up. Its also what sports is.  Sports often brings people together WITHIN a community (although it can drive them apart if they read or post too much to this forum), but in order to do that it does it by creating the 'us vs them' thing, creating that division again.

My wife Grew up in NY city and has a lot of friends still there. I lived for years near Boston and my company has their headquarters there and I visit for meetings 2 times per year. I can tell you with 100% certainty that there are people from NY that hate people from Boston and people from Boston that hate people from NY and that hatred is there simply because of sports.

I am attaching a somewhat famous NY post front page that they ran about a Yankees-Red sox game.  But the article wasn't about sports, it was a why NY is better than Boston and why New yorkers are better than Bostonians, and it was about bashing the people and city of Boston Guess what, it sells $$$.

That is an example of why I don't like sports.  I know others disagree, but I would love to go to a Sabres-Leafs game and to meet some Leaf fans and talk to them about their team, to talk to them about the Sabres. But instead we have fans that when their team scores, they point at and mock the other team, and behavior that escalates from there.  I know some people like that, it is their 'escape' from crappy jobs or other problem and sports allows them to vent. Its just not my thing.

 

Edited 23 hours ago by mjd1001

[Flashsabre]

2 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

And while I was a little kid, I watched hockey a lot back then.  Even with that, I seem to think that Mario Lemieux in the middle-to-late 80's was just as much, if not more 'dangerous' than Gretzky was in the early 1980's.

I was always a fan of Gretzky over Lemieux, but when I am honest with myself, I think Lemieux and Hasek are the 2 most dominant NHL players I have ever seen.

Gretzky never had the tools Lemieux did: size, reach, shot but he had the drive to be the best Mario didn’t. Lemieux coasted on his talent. He said it was Canada Cup 87 playing with Gretzky that really turned his career around to be dominant. If Mario didn’t have the chronic back issues and cancer I think he would have broken some of Gretzky’s records.

Edited 23 hours ago by Flashsabre

[Jorcus]

2 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

But that is what nationalism it....dividing groups into 'us' vs 'them' based on the borders you live within that someone else made up. Its also what sports is.  Sports often brings people together WITHIN a community (although it can drive them apart if they read or post too much to this forum), but in order to do that it does it by creating the 'us vs them' thing, creating that division again.

My wife Grew up in NY city and has a lot of friends still there. I lived for years near Boston and my company has their headquarters there and I visit for meetings 2 times per year. I can tell you with 100% certainty that there are people from NY that hate people from Boston and people from Boston that hate people from NY and that hatred is there simply because of sports.

I am attaching a somewhat famous NY post front page that they ran about a Yankees-Red sox game.  But the article wasn't about sports, it was a why NY is better than Boston and why New yorkers are better than Bostonians, and it was about bashing the people and city of Boston Guess what, it sells $$$.

That is an example of why I don't like sports.  I know others disagree, but I would love to go to a Sabres-Leafs game and to meet some Leaf fans and talk to them about their team, to talk to them about the Sabres. But instead we have fans that when their team scores, they point at and mock the other team, and behavior that escalates from there.  I know some people like that, it is their 'escape' from crappy jobs or other problem and sports allows them to vent. Its just not my thing.

 

 

I grew up in the NYC area and trust me I know what the rivalry with Boston was like when it was at it's worst. I attended Red Soxs Yankee game in 1978 where the pictured shirts were being sold by street vendors out front. For some reason travel groups in Boston sent bus loads of people to the game and gave them all matching hats or helmets, (I can't remember which) but every Boston fan stood out in the crowd. It was the most violent event I was ever at in my life. There was a fight so large in the upper deck that they stopped playing the game to watch it. I saw a guy fall or get pushed over the rail into the entrance to the stands. The crowd was chanting Boston Sucks. The Rangers Bruins games were just as bad from what I read. I only went to a few NHL games. 

In England they wont even allow opposing fans to sit next to each other. You have to stay in the section you are assigned to for soccer games. So yes sports it's self can cause disdain for another city or team. When you go international though it carries a whole different set of baggage. The narrative is that all players would jump at the chance to play for their country. Heaven help the guy who says, No I am just in it for the fame and fortune. If I have to wear a flag on my back after I win so be it.   

[Thorner]

On 2/23/2025 at 7:09 PM, Sabres Fan in NS said:

I live in Halifax - the birthplace of Crosby, MacKinnon and Marchand (we don't brag too much about him .. 😉).  

I can assure you that no one here gives a fiddler's fart about 2010.  1972 was the height of the cold war, so that was a bit different, but similar to today in a way.

I don’t really understand this website. I feel like I’d have to argue that water is a liquid

Ok. 2010 goal is irrelevant even though it quite literally always tops the Canada wide polls. I think that’s now 452 posters that have disagreed with me, claiming the “4 nations” goal is quite comparable to Henderson, and the goal from the Olympics quite meaningless. I do digress.

Edited 8 hours ago by Thorner

[Thorner]

23 hours ago, JujuFish said:

Eichel was never dominant here. He has clearly continued to mature his game in Vegas.

That said, McDavid is the best player of the generation, and it's foolish to think we didn't have to settle for Eichel.  Downright lunacy.

Ah yes, I keep whining. I made one *single* post about it, which offended you. Now, go search through my post history and tell me when was the last time I whined about it.

 

Eichel finished 8th in mvp voting at 23. Of course he was dominant that season. The fact he was just entering his prime when we dealt him explains why that wasn’t an every year thing with him. I honestly don’t know why I keep mentioning that season and development, no one cares to remember it 

it must be fun to just jump around from argument to argument whenever it suits one best. We have to be patient with 21 and 22 year olds.. unless it’s Jack, he was simply never dominant 

- - -

What’s downright lunacy is lamenting the fact we “missed out” on McDavid rather than lamenting we wasted the asset we did get that was MORE THAN CAPABLE of being the best player on a cup team. What more can you ask for? Imagine being more annoyed we didn’t get the better guy, as if that matters one iota, when we proved ridiculously incapable of building around a player who, again, any team would kill to have because they can be your central player on a cup team 

you are disappointed our failure wasn’t a notch worse? Ok 

Edited 14 hours ago by Thorner

[ska-T Palmtown]

2 hours ago, Thorner said:

I don’t really understand this website. I feel like I’d have to argue that water is a liquid

Ok. 2010 goal is irrelevant even though it quite literally always tops the Canada wide polls. I think that’s now 452 posters that have disagreed with me, claiming the “4 nations” goal is quite comparable to Henderson, a tournament quite literally already forgotten, and the goal from the Olympics quite meaningless. I do digress.

I am quite jealous you have national polls about hockey things 😞 

Most Americans think they won the gold in the game against Russia in 1980 ... and that is IF they even know about it any more. 🤷‍♂️