@ThePaulDriscoll@DocMD17 Ive jumped the shark on being nice these days.
I call idiots what they earn, and I do it loudly. The level of stupid on this app is insane.
Spurs back against wall… W G3 at POR
Spurs back against wall… W G2 vs MIN
Spurs back against wall… W G5 vs MIN
Spurs back against wall… W G4 vs OKC
Spurs back against wall… W G6 vs OKC
Spurs back against wall… W G7 at OKC
Don’t bury the Spurs just yet.
@BillsGal419@Perbix4Norris@PatrickMoranTB You’re not needing to sell me on why Ruff deserves it. He does.
So does Cooper. It was close for a reason. It wasn’t the “bullshit” that so many claim.
@BillsGal419@Perbix4Norris@PatrickMoranTB To this point, you’re asking us to give credence to what Ruff did (I agree with those points), but using that logic and subsequently missing what Cooper accomplished due to relatable variables and calling them not impressive is where you lose me.
I am seeing some wild trade proposals for Dylan Larkin on my timeline, they got me thinking Larkin is some elite 1C thats 25 years old. The guy is a good 2C in the middle/end of his prime let’s calm down guys
@Perbix4Norris@BillsGal419@PatrickMoranTB Oddly enough, Ruff was my pick. I’m a Lightning fan; but I did have Cooper a wicked close second.
“Not his year” isn’t good enough of a reason, nor is “Ruff was better”, or saying it was bullshit that he won.
@Perbix4Norris@BillsGal419@PatrickMoranTB My issue with most Sabres fans arguments are two fold.
1) Most entirely dismiss Cooper being deserving of it. That’s idiotic. Both coaches would have deserved the win.
2) They give zero credibility to counterpoints like the above.
@BoltsBreakdown Winning faceoffs over the course of a year (5 point improvement) gets a net improvement of appx 2 points in 82 games of a season. I care how a team structure handles the seconds after. Thats why we do well, and always have. No to paying premium for fractional faceoff improvements
@BoltsBreakdown Also; above 50% in the dot means zero to me, and it should to you as well. Faceoffs don’t deliver wins. In the moment to moment, they help some but we’ve won for decades without ever being amazing at faceoffs.
@BoltsBreakdown With Larkin, I think this team is at best marginally better, for a significant chunk of open cap.
I’m not sold he’s that impactful when surrounded by talent like we have in our top 6.
We can spend that money more wisely; improve the way you’re aiming, and keep them all.
Pass
@BoltsBreakdown Put another way, if you think adding him nets us 30 plus net goals scored this year, while sacrificing depth guys who fill crucial depth roles, then great. If you think this is the guy that does that for 3-5 years more?
Okay.
I’d bet the bank he isn’t.
@BoltsBreakdown This is the type of trade that ends competitive windows sooner than they should.
He did that while surrounded by mediocre depth (that he did a poor job elevating).
He would not have similar success here without someone else dropping off.
@BoltsBreakdown Larkin helps this team for at most 1-2 years, and imho not nearly as much as some might think he would. The pieces we give up keep our window open far longer than now.
I think this guy Is a pass. Far more value over 5 years with not getting him.
@BoltsBreakdown 1) He fits the Wild better, and it isn't close.
2) He's on the north side of 30, and I have seen evidence for years that he doesn't make those around him better.
3) +/- is a terrible stat to judge a player, and face-offs big picture, are the least predictive stat for wins.
cont