Taro T

Out of curiosity, have the Loafs won a championship in YOUR lifetime?

Which great Blackhawks team are you referring to? The '37-'38 squad that won the Stanley Cup with a losing record? Their other 2 SC winners that were not more than 5 games over 0.500. That '61 team that won the SC was good but not great. Or any of their other teams prior to '67, which was the 1st year they actually had very good teams. Trouble is, none of those very good teams has had any more success than Buffalo or Toronto (i.e., they haven't brought home a SC either).

Why don't you count the 2 SC's they won before they were called the Loafs? I would expect a Laff fan to know a LITTLE bit about his team's history. I guess not. To answer your question, because you're a Loaf fan.

The other reason it won't happen is Montreal's 132 and Detroit's 131 would get eclipsed in no time flat by teams barely playing over 0.500. You are correct on all your points.

USUALLY only around Batavia.

Pick me, pick me. I can't wait to see what it's like to be at a non-playoff game with only ~25% Loaf fans at a Sabres - Laffs game. The last time I can remember being at one, Gare scored his 50th.

That's just what THEY want you to think. That one didn't happen either.

Why is this an either / or? I'd choose #3 - Both.

OK, so you might have proof on that one, but you have nothing proving the moon landings really happened and I saw a movie starring OJ Simpson (yes, THAT OJ) proving that they didn't happen.

Wasn't Jack Kemp a congresscritter?

If Kurt doesn't like interracial parents, imagine what he thinks of interspecies parents.

Are you for real? Would you mind listing other things you believe haven't been proven that are accepted as "facts" by the great unwashed masses? I'm assuming the list would include items like the moon landings, the Earth being round, and the Sun rising in the east.

Well, if Charlie Brown would stop trying to kick the football the thread would peter out on its own. Fortunately, I don't see that happening until we get to at least page 18.

But yet like Good 'ol Charlie Brown, you keep coming back to try to kick the football. Except you haven't realized that it's actually a golf ball and the reason you keep missing it isn't because Lucy pulls it away, it's because your kick is like a roundhouse at a non-existant homerun pitch.

Not even close. Even with what you seem to be describing as a horrible game by Ryan, he's 2-1-1 lifetime against Kovalchuk and company with a 2.47 GAA and a 0.924 SV%. Marty is 4-9, with a 3.51 GAA and a 0.856 SV%. A large part of Marty's former reputation for giving up the soft goal at the most inopportune of times was earned playing against the Thrashers. That 3.51 GAA is even worse when you consider that Marty has been playing against these guys since they were an expansion team. In a year that they only won 19 games all season, Marty pitched a 16 save shutout in an 8-0 victory and LOST the other 3 TIMES to them. The next year, he blew a 3-0 lead, giving up 4 goals on 12 shots en route to a 6-4 loss at home. As I stated before, I would NEVER start Marty against Atlanta unless there was no other option available. Ryan coming off a full day's rest and only playing 2 other games that week was not tired. Not after only playing 8 games prior to this one in the entire month, especially in October.

The Sabres should NEVER start Marty Biron against Atlanta if they have a reasonable alternative. The Thrashers are Marty's personal horror show. Even when Atlanta was a truly bad team, they did bad things to him. Bad things, man.

According to several posters on SS (formerly TSR), he stated that in an interview on WGR on September 15.

No, the logo still will be ugly and not represent anything. A yellow upsidedown swoosh diving into whatever with a big blue smear across the middle of it represents absolutely nothing. As near as I can tell the thing is an abominable snot smear. The logo will still be ridiculed. The logo is being ridiculed whereever it goes. Fortunately, that is the only thing about the team that can be ridiculed at the present moment. Larry Quinn stated before the season started that if the Sabres have an opportunity to win the Stanley Cup in the throwbacks, they will wear the throwbacks. If it should happen, would the team winning the Stanley Cup while wearing the most ridiculous logo ever made ruin the euphoria? Obviously not. But, winning the Stanley Cup will not make a very bad decision about what logo to choose correct.

Considering Kiprusoff was credited with a shutout for a game he lost in the shootout and considering that there are no individual statistics credited to players in the shootout (except for 1 goalie getting a win and the other getting a regulation tie, and those are given to the goalies that are in when the shootout winning goal is scored), I see no reason to think that a goalie that got a 65 minute shutout would then lose it by being replaced in the shootout.

He could be replaced by Miller before the shootout begins. Once the shootout begins, the goalie can only be replaced if he gets injured.

I don't know about that. On the radio stations they've had people calling for Lindy Ruff's and especially Darcy Regier's head for about 8 years. People finally seem to think they are doing a good job, but it took an awful lot for most to cut them a break. There have been people saying they should bench Hasek. There have been people coming with a very comprehensive list of Sabres that should have been put on a short rail. Pretty much in the last 10 years, every guy to wear a Sabres uniform that wasn't named LaFontaine. Most of the true Sabres fans realized that Lindy was doing a very good job, but I will admit there have been many debates as to whether Regier was good, bad, or indifferent. So, I'd have to say I disagree with your premise. As to the original question that started this thread, the Sabres playing great is great. But that doesn't change the fact that the last few weeks there's been a real sick feeling in my stomach on Sunday around 3:45.

Well, I'm certain that there was a certain contingent in the league offices that wanted an asterisk by the record (if they get it tonight) because of the 3 shootout wins. TO has to be known for something besides white nameplates on white sweaters and blue on blue. But, who's to say the Sabres wouldn't have done something different in OT to try to get the win if there weren't a shootout? Considering the Sabres have one of the best, if not the best goalie at stopping breakaways, my guess is Lindy likes his chances when it becomes one on one and has no incentive to force the win in the "regular" OT.

Too lazy to look it up to see which one, but on the radio this morning they said one of the '93 Loafs' wins was in OT. Also, even though the Loafs started 10-0 that year, in a season with 2 extra games (they were playing 2 games at neutral sites for a total of 84 games back then) they could not break 100 points. They had 20 points after 10 games, and in the next 74 only picked up 78 points. Friggin' Loafs.

There are so many flaws with this it isn't even funny. How does the chess club go about offering "free" snacks to people? Are they getting a subsidy from the university and are trying to figure out how best to spend it? Are they pulling some sort of "Revenge of the Nerds" scam on the jock frat to get their "snacks"? Rather than simply asking if people are "interested" in the chess club or not, might it not be good to find out if any of the people can play chess or want to learn? What you need to do to increase membership will likely be HIGHLY effected by who the prospective members are and what their interest and aptitudes in chess are. I'd much rather know that 1st and then worry about whether they'd prefer snacks, pocket protectors, or pornos.

Glad to see you ignored the word never in the sentence I was quoting. I didn't think that word was terribly difficult to comprehend. Apparently it is. What part of that word don't you understand?