JohnC

What are the odds of Tom Brady leaving his wife to take up with Rosie O'Donnell? Those are the same odds that the Bills will use a first round pick on a back. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=rosie+o'donnell&FORM=IARRTH&ufn=rosie+o'donnell&stid=6ee3c41d-3f08-f533-2899-a51c8718335e&cbn=EntityAnswer&cbi=0&FORM=IARRTH

The only valuable and worthwhile assets the Sabres have are young and upcoming players such as Guhle, Nylander, Mittelstadt, Tage etc. Why would we deal these promising players whose better days are in front of them? What's the point of making a deal that can only help marginally to be more competitive for a wildcard chase? That makes no sense from the Sabres's perspective. That is shortsighted thinking that has kept this floundering franchise stuck in the muck of mediocrity. Our veteran players have little value on the market for the obvious reason that in general they suck! What are we going to get back in return for the caliber of players that this organization is systematically dispatching in order to play the better younger players in our system. I have pointedly asked the vocal trade advocates to make a hypothetically deal that improves this roster. The response is silence. Plezmd suggested trading Risto. He is a legitimate top pairing and our workhorse defenseman who is still getting better. Without a doubt teams would covet him. But what would we get back in return? What's the point of creating another gaping hole on a thin roster, and then having to go back and fill it. As I stated in prior posts I believe the GM will make more impacting moves in the offseason. But the potential in-season deals for us is limited. That is not to say that a team such as Toronto with near future cap issues and with a legitimate chance to compete for the cup won't make a big splash deal. The reality is that we are not close to being in that situation. The problem that many people have is that they are not willing to face that reality so they create their own fiction in order to cope with the frustrations of following the Sabres.

What deal would you propose that would be beneficial for the Sabres and make sense for a trading partner? None of our veterans are worth much. And I'm not willing to jettison a prime prospect for the long-shot odds of squeaking into the playoffs. Don't distort what I am saying. I'm not saying, or ever had said, that these in season deals can't be a factor for a contending team. You make a judgment where the team is and where it is going. And then you determine what you got and what you can get for what you got. I stand by my stance that I don't see a significant deal materializing that will make a difference for us within the season. If you can propose a deal that would enhance our status without derailing where we want to be in a year so then state it. Fanciful hypothesizing usually doesn't come to fruition in the real world.

The Sabres are not as good a team as their 10 game win streak would suggest. It was very fluky. Don't let that streak be your measuring stick for how good this team actually was. And the corollary is that the Sabres are not as bad as their current floundering seems to indicate. (I'm confident that you disagree with my assessment.) With respect to the timeline where I significantly disagree with you is that I'm not going to attach the failures and accumulated boondoggles of the prior regimes onto the current regime headed by Botterill. That's simply not fair and right. You asked me before what my timeline was for being better than respectful? My judgment is two more years as the Rochester players get phased in next year. I also expect the GM to make some moves this offseason. Your exhortation to wave the deadweight is understandable. But I'm not caught up with that issue because in the not to distant future they will be systematically dispatched and be replaced with the pipeline players and with players acquired in deals. As I said in a prior post those players are simply placeholders until the younger and better players take their vacated spots. I understand where you and Plezmd are coming from. It is not only an understandable position to take but it is also a reasonable position to take. Where we diverge is that I see more upside from the current roster and pipeline than you do. I also have a lot of faith in Botterill and his judgments. He certainly isn't a dynamic fellow but he is a substantive and analytical manager. He knows what he has and what needs to be done. I see him making some deals this offseason that will accelerate the process. I never expected this team to catapult to the upper echelon. However, I feel that this franchise is steadily and inexorable moving up the ranks. I am not discouraged from what I have seen so far. Quite the contrary. I am confident that we are on the right course. Now is not the time to panic and deviate from the course.

The short-term thinking that you are proposing is a recipe for an even longer period of mediocrity. In hindsight the Taylor Hall deal was a disaster. You can point out the short term benefit of that deal but in the long run it was a very poor deal. The problem I have with Edmonton's trade of him wasn't that he was dealt but what they got in return. As time has gone by it has become abundantly clear that that transaction was a franchise damaging deal. With regards to your conspiring line of thinking with a tacit deal with Skinner that would bring him back after being dealt my recommendation is for you to stop drinking and sober up. That type of backroom deal simply isn't going to happen. If we can't get a deal done the Sabres will take his designated money and use it for another prime-time player.

You are misreading my comments that I have made over the past number of weeks. No one is saying that we should stand pat for the sake of passively waiting for our prospects to bare fruit. That's not what I am saying and have been saying. What I am saying is making deals just to get to the point of being a marginal playoff team is an investment to nowhere. The consequential deals that are more likely to happen will happen in the offseason, not during the season. I'm adamantly opposed to dealing assets for the shortsighted purpose of hanging on to a very thin thread of a playoff appearance. The Skinner trade was a consequential deal. It happened in the offseason. The ROR deal was a consequential deal that in the short term set us back. That transaction happened in the offseason. Hopefully in the long term it will work out well for us because it gave us cap flexibility and a good young player in Tage. In addition, It also moved out a player who simply didn't want to be here any longer. The Sabres were the worst team in hockey last year. They are going to be more than twenty points better than last year. You may sneer at that increase but I am not. As it stands we have a few players in Rochester who should be ready to play in the NHL next year. Will some of those AHL players be moved up to the big club as you want? Maybe? If the GM determines that it is best for the younger players to get more playing time in the minors for the benefit of their development then I'm fine with it. You constantly point out that the timeline is too long to get to the point beyond respectability. My repeated response is the same: What has extended the process is the constant churning of staff and the frequent changing of rebuilding plans. Much to your dismay I still say: Stay the course because that is the only viable course. If a deal makes sense then make it. If it doesn't then don't make it. I'm just more encouraged with what has transpired this year than you are. Let it play out.

The Taylor Hall to New Jersey turned out to be a boondoggle deal. It invigorated the Devils and set them on a course of adding youth and speed to a slow and sluggish team. The acquisition of Larsson and the costly Lucic didn't help as much as it was hoped. What the Taylor Hall deal demonstrates is that you have to be cautious when you are making it out of desperation. In this case it was to buttress a weak defense. When you have a dynamic player such as Hall you have to be sure that the return is at least equal to what you are giving up. This trade clearly wasn't. And most of the critical commentary after the deal reflected that imbalance. I understand why the Oilers wanted to add some muscle with their acquisition of Lucici. However, his contract was too rich for what he added to the team. In a cap system a bad contract can foreclose a lot of future options. A number of frustrated fans want Botterill to be less cautious and more willing to make deals for a struggling team. He's doing the right thing by being judicious and not forced into making a deal that will hurt our near future. My recommendation that riles an impatient faction is to stay the course.

Your methodology in scouting is easy to understand. Disagree with my assessments and you will always be right. No need to thank me for the assistance. I offer it to everyone who is willing to be snookered.

This conspiracy talk is ludicrous. It's lunatic talk that could get one committed to an institution that has locked cells and bars. How are the owners going to conspire? Are the owners going to sit around the boardroom with their spread sheets and revenue data indicating what outcomes are the most financially rewarding? Do you know what would quickly kill the golden goose that enriches every owner? An illegal conspiracy that couldn't be kept quiet and would not only publicly destroy the game but also would bring in the feds with their army of lawmen to put away the fools involved in such a zany scheme. My recommendation to you is to take off your tin foil hat to ward off the moonbeams that is driving your lunatic thoughts. I don't mean this as a personal condemnation but you are being ridiculously silly.

With respect to all your trade proposals I say absolutely not! When you take a step back to gain a step you end up in the same spot. What's the freaking point? Acting out of frustration and impulsivity is a losing proposition. My recommendation to you is to drink less and stay away from the ponies. You will end up more sober-minded and less impoverished.

Respectfully, I have a different take from you and the despairing Plenzmd. This team isn't collapsing as much as it is faltering. Let's put things in perspective. The Sabres were not only the worst team in hockey last year---- they were also unwatchable. Last year, there was no redeemable entertaining value to watching them. Not so this year. Maybe that was the gruesome plan to give them a greater opportunity to pick Dahlin? So if that was the low point then let's look at where we are now. When this season is completed this team will be more than 20 pts better. I'm aware that the benchmark is low but that is where we were last year. That's progress. The vets that the Sabres have are all disposable. We added vets just for the sake of filling roster spots. It's really not worth being bothered by their lack of production because all of those end of the line players are systematically going to be replaced next year or at worst the year after. I believe that Mittelstadt and Tage are going to be legitimate second line players. Episodically, they do show glimpses of talent but for the most part their lack of experience is revealed. That's not to be unexpected. It's part of the exasperating developmental process. Another player I'm following is Pilut. For a young player who hasn't played in North America I think he is showing talent. His mistakes due to inexperience can be crushing but again that is part of the developmental process. I'm hoping that Nylander and Guhle will get a chance to play this season. But if the GM decides to keep them down on the farm to get more playing time I will understand the reasoning. I really believe that our GM (who I'm impressed with) will make some consequential moves this offseason. That's when those types of big moves are made. I understand the frustration by the fans with not being a playoff team for so long. But I feel strongly that it would be a mistake to deal off assets to get a chance to squeak into the playoffs this season. I understand what Botterill is doing, and I agree with it. We are not as far off as many people think. We have played well against most of the top dog teams this year. For the most part we were competitive to the end. But in the end the more talented team prevailed. I'm confident that if we stay the course by next year this team will move up into the playoff echelon. I advocate for patience and having the fortitude to trust the process.

I'm rooting for the Pats in the SB. And the irrational animosity directed toward Sullivan was silly. Complaining about a columnist while continuing to read his work is like hating Italian food and continuing to go to Italian restaurants.

Rumor has it that the article was ghost written by Plexmd. I don't see Botterill deviating from his plan in not giving up an asset for a short-term solution. Last offseason, the Sabres traded for Skinner and dealt ROR. That's when the GM will probably makes some impacting deals. I just don't see anything other than a marginal deal being made during the season. On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if Nylander was brought up.

Moving up for an OT would make no sense. However, moving down and selecting one with the bonus of adding picks isn't a bad idea. As with ever trade deal you have to ask what are you forgoing and are you ultimately getting better with more picks. I'm inclined to think that McDermott is going to go with the best defensive lineman.

I just don't see the Bills drafting a receiver with their first pick. If they were determined to do so I would suspect that they would trade down and then make the pick. If polled most of us would expect that because of his background the HC would take the best defensive lineman on the board, which is the strength of the draft. If we could trade down to the lower part of the first round and select a player such as Michigan's Winovich and accumulate picks that would be fine with me. If the Bills don't draft an offensive lineman in the first round, with a trade down or not, I'm hoping that we would use the second round to get a good line prospect. That unit has to be a priority in this offseason. There are so many options to consider. The bottom line is make your picks count.

Winners win and losers make excuses why winners win. Don't worry about the other guy. Take care of your own business. Grow up and stop being a crybaby.

I simply don't care how they handle their cap.

After seeing the toll that football has taken on his father Thurman Thomas's son decided not play football. Parents are steering their kids away from football to other sports because of the risks associated with the game. Thurman's son is a very good baseball player. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/07/09/thurman-thomas-open-about-memory-loss-other-issues-related-to-concussions/

Let me summarize your post: You have a theory but no proof. It's like someone calling you out for wearing pink perfumed girlie underwear. You respond to the accuser by saying that you have no proof for such a scurrilous accusation. The response by the accuser is that it could be true because it is his theory that hasn't been disproven. That's how nonsensical your logic and theory are.

You post makes little sense. You say that you don't have proof that Kraft is circumventing the cap. Then why are you suggesting that he may be? That line of reasoning is utterly vapid. You also make the point that the Pats wouldn't be as successful without Brady. Everyone in the world would make the same obvious point. You coach who you got. Other coaches have had great players on their rosters and didn't succeed to the extent that he has. What has made BB's record historically standout is that he has done it over such a long length of period. Under Bill Polian the Bills had a list of HOF players on their roster in their glory years and multiple SB appearances. BB's record is infinitely better even when his roster wasn't so replete with the number of HOF players. Your conclusion is the same conclusion that I postulated with my prior post.

You can make excuses if you want as to why they constantly win. It doesn't matter what others think because their record is their record. Your rationalization is your rationalization. The Colts had Peyton, and the Packers had Favre and Rodgers. Combined how many SBs do they have compared to Brady and the Pats? Who cares what the financial arrangement is between the qb and the owner? And who cares and what relevancy is that Brady has a wife who earns more than he does. Winners win and losers make excuses.

Bill Belichick is coaching in era of the cap which promotes player movement. And because of his extended success he has had to deal with a lot of coaching and front office departures. His teams never seem to lose a step. I do have a high regard for Bill Walsh and especially his innovative offensive systems. He is without question deserving of his HOF status. But in the era that he coached he was better able to keep his team in tact and out spend other organizations to maintain their roster. Belichick doesn't have that luxury and advantage.

Belichick is the best coach in the modern NFL if not in the history of the game. Coaching in the cap era and juggling rosters and changing staffs have made coaching even more complicated and challenging. Yet, he not only consistently wins but also year in and year out competes for the top prize. When given an extra week to come up with a defensive game plan against another opponent he usually comes up with a game plan that takes away what you do best and forces you to do things that you are less proficient at. McVay may be a coaching prodigy but BB has been at this game much longer and has dealt with the distractions associated with this circus environment. I usually root for the AFC team. So I will be rooting for the Pats. To those who childishly consider the Pats the enemies I say that we are not good enough and haven't earned the right to be considered rivals, at least for now.

The idea that Marv Levy and Buddy Nix were considered GMs, let alone actually selected as GMs, is a testament to how out of touch the owner was. We were operating with a horse and buggy mentality in a jet and WiFi world. We never stood a chance. And then later on Rex Ryan was selected as a head coach because he had pizazz! This was obscenely stupid! Thankfully, that foolishness and era is behind us. I'm not steadfast as to the best way to acquire linemen. My preference is to use both the draft and free agency to reconstruct the OL. If a good line prospect is available and is ranked a little lower than where we are drafting then I would hope that we would trade down and get an extra pick or two. We have so many needs to address. By building an effective line you not only better protect the qb but you will be able to establish a running game that will also put the qb in a better situation to run an offense. What is missed by many is that being able to establish a credible running game and garnering first outs you are helping the defense by keeping it off the field for longer spells. That's exactly what happened in the New England/Kansas game. KC was gassed as the end of the game because they were on the field so much. One of the biggest differences in this game against two evenly matched opponents was that the Patriots had a running game to keep Kansas's defense on the field and withering as the game went on. We have our qb in the fold. And we now have the draft and cap capital. It's got to be a priority; and its got to get done.

As you noted Reid holding on to those TOs when his players (especially the lineman) were noticeably out of breath made no sense. Tony Romo made the observation that this would be a good time to call time out so the defense could recover. On the next play the OL and blockers gashed a sizeable hole (seam) for the back to easily get through.