Dwight Drane Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 One more thingy that is going unnoticed with this team. Our minor league affilliate is 4-0. Talent and more talent on the way. Go Sabres go Ameriks! 809042[/snapback] Are we still partners with Florida? They are off to a nice start as well.
Chef Jim Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 Haha. I'm just reminiscing on JSP's ripping of Miller last year. I truly believe this team is better than last year's and they have every shot to take the Cup they should have gotten last year, if not for injuries. For me, I feel fortunate to watch them and fortunate to have two teams that tie me back to the area. BTW don't you hate hockey? And I'm a Fredonian, never lived in Buffalo or even Erie County. 808874[/snapback] Hate hockey? Me?? Hell no. I'm actually a bigger hockey fan than football, thus a bigger Sabres fan than Bills.
Taro T Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 I wasn't talking about the postseason. I was just talking about regular season. It pissed me off because it beat the Canadians record of most points in a season 809050[/snapback] No, it didn't (insert CTM/BJ invective here). The '76-'77 Canadiens ended the season 60-8-12 for 132 points. BTW, they came from behind against Washington in the last game of the season to get their 60th win. They also went 12-2 in the playoffs sweeping their 1st round and the Finals. Detroit did get 62 wins (in 82 games) but only ended up with 131 points. 13 of their 20 non-wins were losses. I thought that even in Quebec that 132 was greater than 131. Maybe I was wrong.
loadofmularkey Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 I thought that even in Quebec that 132 was greater than 131. Maybe I was wrong. 809132[/snapback] The metric system is the tool of the devil
meazza Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 No, it didn't (insert CTM/BJ invective here). The '76-'77 Canadiens ended the season 60-8-12 for 132 points. BTW, they came from behind against Washington in the last game of the season to get their 60th win. They also went 12-2 in the playoffs sweeping their 1st round and the Finals. Detroit did get 62 wins (in 82 games) but only ended up with 131 points. 13 of their 20 non-wins were losses. I thought that even in Quebec that 132 was greater than 131. Maybe I was wrong. 809132[/snapback] I stand corrected.
Bungee Jumper Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 No, it didn't (insert CTM/BJ invective here). 809132[/snapback] Well, if you insist... Meazza, you're an idiot.
Alaska Darin Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 Whoa there, they're a good team, probably one of the strongest in the NHL, but let's not start comparisons to the great Red Wings team that practically went undefeated. It will be a tight game and fun to watch as well. 809033[/snapback] You mean in an era when you could buy whatever players you wanted, because 20 teams couldn't afford to keep up? Thanks, I'll take right now.
Lori Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 Was a little irked with Miller last postseason, yes. You don't say. You mean in an era when you could buy whatever players you wanted, because 20 teams couldn't afford to keep up? Thanks, I'll take right now. True, that. I love me all those shiny Lord Stanleys my Habs have won, but fully realize this is the same team that once bought the rights to an entire LEAGUE so they could get their hands on Beliveau...
Alaska Darin Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 You don't say. True, that. I love me all those shiny Lord Stanleys my Habs have won, but fully realize this is the same team that once bought the rights to an entire LEAGUE so they could get their hands on Beliveau... 809429[/snapback] I think Dynasties are cool as hell but I certainly prefer the level playing field. I was OK with the Sabres only being outspent by 25-30% last season instead of the 300% of previous seasons. Now that we have Mr. G, our really smart GM and Coach get to shine. I still think the rich teams will be more likely to have success, simply because they have the resources to find players. But no longer will they be able to pluck HoFer after HoFer simply because the smaller markets can't pay up. Finally, the NHL does something right.
Chilly Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 I think Dynasties are cool as hell but I certainly prefer the level playing field. I was OK with the Sabres only being outspent by 25-30% last season instead of the 300% of previous seasons. Now that we have Mr. G, our really smart GM and Coach get to shine. I still think the rich teams will be more likely to have success, simply because they have the resources to find players. But no longer will they be able to pluck HoFer after HoFer simply because the smaller markets can't pay up. Finally, the NHL does something right. 809436[/snapback] I'd have to agree.
meazza Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 I think Dynasties are cool as hell but I certainly prefer the level playing field. I was OK with the Sabres only being outspent by 25-30% last season instead of the 300% of previous seasons. Now that we have Mr. G, our really smart GM and Coach get to shine. I still think the rich teams will be more likely to have success, simply because they have the resources to find players. But no longer will they be able to pluck HoFer after HoFer simply because the smaller markets can't pay up. Finally, the NHL does something right. 809436[/snapback] yet you're a yankees fan?
taterhill Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 yet you're a yankees fan? 809442[/snapback] oooops
Alaska Darin Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 yet you're a yankees fan? 809442[/snapback] You're right, I should renounce my lifelong fandom because baseball's management sucks. I should toss the memories of my father and grandfather taking me on those long road trips to games or teaching me stuff with Scooter, Bill White, etc doing PbP on the radio in the background, and toss the newspaper clippings they saved for me from the DiMaggio/Mantle era - you know, because I really care what other people think about who I root for. Any room on the Indians' bandwagon? I've always had a soft spot in my heart for Rick Manning.
meazza Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 You're right, I should renounce my lifelong fandom because baseball's management sucks. I should toss the memories of my father and grandfather taking me on those long road trips to games or teaching me stuff with Scooter, Bill White, etc doing PbP on the radio in the background, and toss the newspaper clippings they saved for me from the DiMaggio/Mantle era - you know, because I really care what other people think about who I root for. 809462[/snapback] Not really? When did I ever say that? It's just a tad ironic, this coming from an expos fan who knows what it's like for a Sabres fan. Dyansties make the games great, in either sport, but I think they are a thing of the past.
Alaska Darin Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 Not really? When did I ever say that? It's just a tad ironic, this coming from an expos fan who knows what it's like for a Sabres fan. Dyansties make the games great, in either sport, but I think they are a thing of the past. 809473[/snapback] It's ironic? The Yankees sucked most of the time I was growing up (sans the mid/late 70s when they got it together for a few years). You know, when fandom actually sets in with most people. I was a die hard fan who followed everything they did. That was true all the way until baseball decided to quit and cost Don Mattingly his only legit shot at a championship. Since then, I'm a fan in passing. Now, I watch a game here and there, but you're far more likely to see me trying to find a game Greg Maddux is pitching than spending time watching the latest version of George's fantasy team take the field. I said it when the Red Sox won: they had a far more likeable team than the Yankees do and I hate them. Is baseball broken? I guess it depends on who you ask. I don't watch too much anymore, so that's one way to look at it. Would I come back if they instituted a cap? I doubt it. I'd rather watch the minors.
meazza Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 It's ironic? The Yankees sucked most of the time I was growing up (sans the mid/late 70s when they got it together for a few years). You know, when fandom actually sets in with most people. I was a die hard fan who followed everything they did. That was true all the way until baseball decided to quit and cost Don Mattingly his only legit shot at a championship. Since then, I'm a fan in passing. Fair enough, I grew up an Oilers fan but that was before they let the great one slip away. Keep in mind I was 10 years old. I then slowly merged into a Habs fan and saw them more as a mediocre team than as a dynasty that the old timers I know raved about. Is baseball broken? I guess it depends on who you ask. I don't watch too much anymore, so that's one way to look at it. Would I come back if they instituted a cap? I doubt it. I'd rather watch the minors. 809492[/snapback] Baseball is over for me. I watched the Expos religiously only to see them come second fiddle to the Braves and a lockout. The only way they should fix it is by making more teams make the playoffs. 162 games in which 80% of the league has no chance.
Bungee Jumper Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 The only way they should fix it is by making more teams make the playoffs. 162 games in which 80% of the league has no chance. 809511[/snapback] Let's just make everyone a World Series winner every year, because they're all special. !@#$ing socialist Canadians. Seriously, baseball died for me when they introduced the wild card team. I always enjoyed the fact that baseball had the purest playoff format of any league: you win your division, you're in the playoffs. You don't, see ya next year, tough sh--. Just like I hated hockey when everyone got to the playoffs except Hartford. Having too many playoff teams makes the regular season irrelevent.
meazza Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 Let's just make everyone a World Series winner every year, because they're all special. !@#$ing socialist Canadians. Seriously, baseball died for me when they introduced the wild card team. I always enjoyed the fact that baseball had the purest playoff format of any league: you win your division, you're in the playoffs. You don't, see ya next year, tough sh--. Just like I hated hockey when everyone got to the playoffs except Hartford. Having too many playoff teams makes the regular season irrelevent. 809519[/snapback] Well it depends. I mean if you're going to go for that format.. then generally, the richest teams will always be on top. It reminds of the soccer format, you get the most points you win the league, you get the least points you get sent down to the minors. But yet it works for the NFL...
SDS Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 Let's just make everyone a World Series winner every year, because they're all special. !@#$ing socialist Canadians. Seriously, baseball died for me when they introduced the wild card team. I always enjoyed the fact that baseball had the purest playoff format of any league: you win your division, you're in the playoffs. You don't, see ya next year, tough sh--. Just like I hated hockey when everyone got to the playoffs except Hartford. Having too many playoff teams makes the regular season irrelevent. 809519[/snapback] Absolutely. The regular season is a marathon. Anyone can win in a short series (except the Braves ). The postseason was supposed to be reserved for the marathon winners, not the also-rans.
Bungee Jumper Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 Well it depends. I mean if you're going to go for that format.. then generally, the richest teams will always be on top. It reminds of the soccer format, you get the most points you win the league, you get the least points you get sent down to the minors. But yet it works for the NFL... 809522[/snapback] The NFL doesn't have a minor league. Just Arizona. And the NFL will go the way of MLB soon enough, if Snyder and Jones have their way. They're too interested in maximizing their short-term return to worry about maintaining the long-term viability of the NFL brand.
Recommended Posts