Analyze the question in the topic. Do you think it's possible that we are winning, but that we can't be classified as winners?

I feel that winners have grit, comraderie, and heart, all of which are at, IMO, an all time low.

I do not thing this team is a winner.

_________________

I agree with you. To be true winners you have to have a drive, determination to win at all cost. To play the game as hard as you can, for as long as you need too, to get that win. I haven't seen that in this team in years.

_________________

Chemistry plays an incredibly important role in a team's charisma. I think that, between all of our new roster additions, injuries, and young guys struggling, this team has struggled to find its chemistry thus far, and as such, it' killed their ability to put together 60 minute games.

I saw a stat on twitter the other day. The Sabres 12-7 start to the season has only been bested 3 other times in franchise HISTORY. For a team that hasn't found its charisma yet, that's pretty damn good.

Be patient. Ruff has shown us time and time again that he pulls these guys together and gets them going. Once they find their rhythm, their confidence will skyrocket, and they'll be one scary team to contest with.

_________________
Wheelhouse

I hope you're right man, and hope it's sooner rather than later. We're 20% into the season, and I'd like to see this team slide into a comfortable playoff spot instead of having to go balls-out down the stretch.

_________________

I've said this before in regard to the entire NHL...guaranteed contracts and an 82 game schedule (with lots of back-to-backs) cause the players to lighten up for stretches during the season. We'll never see a consistent 100% effort from any team until playoffs. It's frustrating, but Buffalo is no different, and if they all played 100% every game there's a decent chance we'd have half an AHL roster by April anyway.

As for Buffalo specifically...no, they aren't a tough and gritty team and haven't been for a loooong time. There was a glimpse of an open-ice era taking over the game that fizzled out, so we're left with a finesse team trying to succeed in a grinder league that's just a little more fun to watch than the NHL of the mid-late '90s (that is - a little more fun than watching a chess match). I don't think anyone can call them "winners" until they at least make it to the finals a few years (and compete) or win one Cup. But short of that doesn't really matter, but you can lump 29 teams into that category every year also.

Well that's a very "politically correct" answer...you found a way to say yes and no, and not offend me

_________________

This thread is way too philosophical. In the NHL, if you win or seriously compete for the cup, you're a winner no matter how you got there. Unless you're Pittsburgh, Detroit, or Boston, it's way too early to make the designation of "winner".

Can't be a winner if you can't find ways to win

_________________

We are basically 8th in the conference, that's not what I'd call a winner.

_________________

7th but who's counting....

_________________

Rangers are 2 points behind with 3 games in hand, so we're 8th in my book

_________________

technicalities...

_________________

Give it time...as long as our guys begin to stand up for each other from now on, I'll be happy

_________________
"...they came down into the stands and asked if I knew how to do play by play. I said...No. But. I'll take a shot at it if you want".- Rick Jeanneret

Yeah, if you have a sissy team with no camraderie, balls or heart, they're winners. Why do we say that winners have to have heart, intestinal fortitude and all that? Because it's that kind of attitude that leads to winning, more often than not. But if you have all of that, and you don't win, you're not a winner. If you're lacking that, and you still win, you're a winner. You're probably just some kind of anomaly, to win with such a poor attitude.

Ham

_________________
Do you believe yet?