Dr. Who

It's pretty much the same location in Orchard Park.

I could be wrong, but my impression is that KA has tried for some of these names and they just don't want to come here. I don't know if it is the decades long ineptitude or a matter of how much term and price is being asked for. The match between goalie and team in most of these cases has been speculated for some time. I have read a few folks on other boards suggesting Lindgren who is at least an unknown vs. the rest who are left who are known bad goalies. It is frustrating, for sure. Right now, we are a young team starting to come together. If there was one position that needed an upgrade this off-season, goalie is it and everyone knows it.

I don't think its entirely obvious. It's a long shot, but he has played better at the NHL level in limited time. He can't stay healthy, which is an issue. At minimum, he's the best goalie on the roster with a very low bar. I would make a play for Kuemper, even with longer term. He's not great, but average goalie is a leap for us. You'd have to overpay some. Still think having good goal tending encourages the whole team and makes everyone better.

You're drafting 17 year olds, sometimes 18 and the odd over-ager. Development is more akin to baseball. You just can't rush that. Sabres have arguably the deepest pool of prospects in the league. Goalie is an issue, but they should be markedly improved in the coming seasons. Hard to be patient after 11 years of missing the playoffs, but there's no magic wand, unfortunately.

He will, most likely. Kyrgios' sister is cute. Social media may have commented on her rather skimpy outfit. She put a jacket on, oh well.

If you do, make sure you don't tell your wife.

Yes, I have that secret hope as well, but I am not saying anything because the hockey gods are capricious and after more than a decade of sadness, I'm paranoid.

I'm guardedly optimistic that Levi intends to ultimately sign with Buffalo. Portillo is an enigma, but I wouldn't count on him ever signing (Ryan Johnson at D is questionable, too, obviously.) Regardless, the goaltending problem is we need someone who is at least decent for 2 - 3 years even if Levi were to develop best case scenario and it seems anyone who has options wants longer term and probably more than KA wants to pay. Nonetheless, it's a fool's game to think your young team is going to progress with a 41 year old and injury prone UPL whose never done anything at the NHL level. I hope there's a plan beyond not placing a veteran in the way of a young player (and as you noted, it sure as hell didn't work as a draw for enticing a collegiate goalie to sign so far.)

I dunno, Gugny. Do you really want to go there? Irritate the wrong folks and they introduce you to Jimmy Hoffa.

I'd rather they brought Anderson back as a goalie coach. They need to do better, but I'm skeptical that they will.

Squib Farwell, that loser . . . but he doesn't think about it.

Davis looks great when he looks great. I am not sold he can do it consistently, but he might. I hope he does, obviously. I'd still like to have a talented player at the position for depth and in case Davis falters.

In your list, the only one who is proven elite is Diggs. Some may get there -- I like Knox, some are serviceable vets like Crowder. Rb room is not exceptional, though Singletary was playing well late and in the post-season. I've already said elsewhere I wanted an elite outside WR, that's where I would have invested, though I understand Elam and that's not foolish. I suppose there is some semantic gray area. No one is saying there has been no attention to offense. It's the relative weight, which you interpret one way and I another.

Well, I think this is nicely stated. The view that doesn't make sense to you, however, is capable of cogent rationale. It boils down to the judgement that the rules and inclination of the contemporary NFL inevitably favor the offense. Even the best defense has to tilt against not only the opposing offense, but the way the game is officiated and the predisposition to allow for high scoring games. In that case, it might be more prudent to stack the offense if you are fortunate enough to have a top echelon qb who magnifies the abilities of the players around him. That way, you are always in a position to compete even on days when the defense is subpar or the score escalates regardless because of the constant of what kind of game is prioritized. None of that means ignore the defense or refuses to admit deficiencies that needed to be addressed. Then it becomes a question of what needs are prioritized over others. It's evident that so far the regime has heavily favored the D which is counter to the way the game is currently played. It doesn't mean it's wrong, but you are asking Allen to bear more of the load than he would have to if you increased investment with superior draft picks and free agents on his side of the ball. The model we are following increases the danger of a shortened career and injury when Allen turns into the chief running option in playoffs and important games down the stretch in the regular season. One accepts some of that for the post-season, but it is stll best to minimize the need. Naturally, if young talent develps on offense, that mitigates the situation, but it doesn't change analyses of where we have chosen to concentrate resources.

I've never heard him say that. He thinks Davis has been injury prone, which is true, and that he is unproven as a consistent and reliable threat despite some individual spectacular days. I like Davis, but I would have preferred a bigger investment at outside speed receiver with size.

I've been watching football for over fifty years, but I don't claim to be an expert. So maybe this is a stupid question/observation, but I don't understand why there apparently wasn't a spy assigned to Mahomes in the divisional game. He just killed us with his legs. Shut that down, you likely win the game, and yet we seemingly had no answer and made no adjustments. Same D that was able to more or less contain Lamar Jackson couldn't do it against Ratface.

Wait till you're old and everyone is on hiatus. Except the Stones. Doesn't apply to the undead.

You know the weather man always gets it wrong.

Every time I see this thread title, I subconsciously read it as Jimbo vs Satan. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that I am an UGA fan😀

Was everyone wearing bell bottoms?

I watched for a while. Then I tried not watching because I have the sports' fan superstition that the gods are perverse and go out of their way to thwart my affections. If I don't watch, they can't mess with the team or person I am rooting for . . . alas, Swiatek was just too good, but Jessica has definitely improved her game. Too bad, because the path was wide open after Swiatek.

Swiatek has won over 30 matches in a row. It's the longest win streak since 2000, so it's historically good. Of course, Pegula could surprise, but it will take an epic effort.

Apparently with her success so far, her world ranking is now top ten.

Unfortunately, she's got Iga Swiatek next, so it's probably the end of the line.

I did not take the conversation to be intended to take into consideration female stars. I suppose when I think of star, I think of classic Hollywood. There's a certain glamour invoked. Tom Hanks is a great actor. I don't think he carries the charisma that star connotates for me, though that is not really fair. He fits in with Jimmy Stewart and Gary Cooper, that type, anyway. I agree on Pitt somewhat, though he often seeks out quirky, challenging films that do not cater to a wide audience. DiCaprio, for sure. There's always talent and there is always a rising generation. I did not intend otherwise. Cruise, however, seems to me to have a string of hits over the course of forty years in a genre where it is difficult to remain relevant for that length of time. I'm glad Top Gun: Maverick is a really good film.