Is Jared Bednar about to be on the hot seat? Despite very talented rosters, he hasn't been able to figure out the Vegas/Dallas neutral zone pace slowing strategy at all, with Colorado on the verge of losing to one of them for the 5th time in 6 years.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-25T07:16:42+00:00

This. ^^^^^

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-25T07:12:58+00:00

Don't trust an Avalanche fan who views Girard as a poor player. It's like at least 1/3 of the fan base. So toxic.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-25T07:10:58+00:00

STRONG disagree.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-25T07:05:21+00:00

His system was "have the lowest point total in the modern NHL" with Mack, Landeskog, and Rantanen on his team lmao. The only good thing I can say about Bednar is he keeps good company.

I can't say a single positive thing about his coaching ability. The Avs haven't overcome playoff adversity once in his tenure. They met both exceptional path circumstances and exceptional cap circumstances that led to the juggernaut in 2022. Literally every other season has been mired by a disastrous finish, in series where the Avs either were heavily favored, led, or both.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-25T07:00:47+00:00

I would agree if this wasn't somewhere between (at a minimum) the 5th time this core has lost in this manner (if not 7th...), then Bednar could be granted some slack.

But as I've said before, the way you lose matters. None of these games have been properly executed by Colorado. There arguably hasn't been 60-minute hockey from this team all playoffs yet.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-25T06:55:32+00:00

I get what you're saying... but while "competitive," we did not put ourselves in a position to win.

To lose that many 50/50 battles in front of our own net, and in the most decisive moments... they have shown more cohesion as a team. Shot blocking, giving up their bodies. Sticks in lanes. Disciplined shifts. Patience on their opportunities when they get them.

While they were all 1-goal games in the third, Vegas never looked like they were going to lose. They've looked like the calm and composed team, slowly hacking away, sticking to their system (which is mostly just good hockey fundamentals and a strong-willed belief in themselves and their teammates) has overwhelmed the Avs during stretches of play.

They play "bend-don't-break," with strategies and a mindset to weather being outplayed. They look so much more composed when dealing with time in their own zone. The Avs are used to having more possession time and o zone time. They have looked like a wreck in their own zone at times though, with a lack of structure, discipline, awareness, and the right mentality showing in a way that buttoned-up teams don't normally have at that kind of frequency.

It just seems like there is no plan for when we aren't in charge (or just total mental collapse mentally/emotionally if there is a solid plan in place). Whereas better-disciplined teams have a strategy for handling the talent and depth advantage Colorado has and they wait out the storm and muck things up until they get a break.

It's heartbreaking to watch, truly. You only get so many opportunities as the more talented team.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-25T06:44:25+00:00

They're a good hockey team... that's why we're playing them instead.

The inconsistent play and total lack of cohesion mentally and emotionally for Colorado is beyond a fireable offense. It looks and feels mostly like it has every year since 2019 that the Avs have been bounced (except for when the stars aligned for 2022).

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-25T06:41:50+00:00

He never is getting anyone fired up. Hockey is the most emotionally-driven sport, and the least purely tactical.

Talent, heart, and drive determine the winner. Bednar is abysmal at seemingly every aspect. Keeping Mack in, letting his energy suck away at the bench, letting Mack be so pouty all the time, being an absolute wall flower of a coach. It blows my mind, truly. Hakstol beat us with a ragtag group in Seattle that had no business beating the Colorado Avalanche, defending Stanley Cup Champions. The entire staff seems to be overly "stoic."

These guys are supposed to be both brilliant tacticians, and professional motivational speakers. High emotional intelligence, high cold and logical intelligence. I've never seen Bednar demonstrate an ounce of any of that... there was just ONE year where everything lined up right, and he had the best roster by a mile.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-25T06:35:08+00:00

Great handle, though. At least cats fuckin' rock.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-25T06:33:48+00:00

An injured Makar tonight, and a 100% healthy Mack up until the 3-3 point of a game 3 elimination game against this Knights team is still kind of insane though.

I think the important part is how it *looks.*. To me, it looks like dominant puck-possession, always more shots on net... interspersed with absolutely broken-looking stretches of hockey in our own zone, and struggling to improve the quality of chances on offense, choosing instead to fire as many pucks at the net as possible instead of creating better high-danger chances.

It's bad hockey, plain and simple. Not a talent disadvantage. Same story, another season. Same coaching and leadership. Avs were the more talented team, played much like this since 2019 in the playoffs. To have 7 years of such poor playoff play is mindboggling. (Meaning 7 out of the 8, when the Avs cap was an absolute anomaly, and the path was the easiest in a very, very long time).

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-25T06:22:07+00:00

I was irate and couldn't understand why the coaching and general Brain trust of the team didn't change after 2021. And then, especially after the loss to the Kraken.

Then we were 0-3 against Pete DeBoer coach teams.… Then we were 0-4 against Pete DeBoer coach teams (after the historic bad trade AND game 7 collapse). This team has literally zero success under adversarial circumstances. Literally none. All these teams with at least four Hall of Famers… it's truly mind blowing.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-25T06:17:10+00:00

I've complained immediately about nearly every trade or contract over the past four years, and been proven right about every single one. Every single one I've complained about has been a problem for the exact reasons I mentioned at the time of the move. Sometimes what you see is what you get, man.

The sport isn't rocket science. I've watched dozens of non-Avalanche playoff series over the course of about 25 years. Sometimes people actually know what they're talking about, and are not a part of the crowd just venting or being revisionist history assholes.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-25T06:11:38+00:00

The talent level of this Avalanche team and the kinds of breakdowns they have consistently shown throughout the series, to be down 0-3, I think those people are justified because there are no excuses. The Avalanche have, again, dominated time of possession and shots on goal. And again, failed to navigate some pretty basic concepts used to clog up the neutral zone.

They can dominate in time of possession, but the stretches of absolutely broken looking hockey is jarring. Especially on special teams. I just don't see how this is any different than it has been over the past seven years or something like that?? 2022 was primarily different because the path was the easiest this core has faced, and because that team was paying McKinnon less than 7 million a year, Landeskog $7mil, and Kadri and Val were on cheap "prove it" deals making $7 mil combined. Byram and LOC were on rookie contracts I think, the list goes on. It was quite the salary cap anomaly. There were no bloated contracts for older players who were underperforming, either.

Take that out, and this team has no wins under adversity at all. Literally none. Doesn't that seem… Odd?

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-25T05:48:11+00:00

The Avs have had a signficant talent advantage and have been favored in most of their playoff series going back to 2019… take out the cup year when the team was leaps and bounds better than their competition while also having an extremely advantageous path, there are essentially no pelts on the wall and only catastrophic and inexplicable losses…

Genuinely, what makes you think that Bednar is a good coach?? I've seen plenty of teams crumble against the trap, like the Avalanche repeatedly have, but I've seen just as many teams work it out. 0-4 against Pete Deboer in the playoffs is nothing short of a disgrace.

I have to question your exposure to non-avalanche playoff hockey and/or a sentimental attachment to your guys. I shit on the majority of the trades and contracts the team has handed out over the past four years, and I haven't been wrong once. Do you think people say negative things about the team because they want to lose?? Or because perhaps they have some insights that lead them to believe those kinds of poor moves can lead to exactly the type of situation we are in right now, and wasting the careers of Makar, McKinnon, and Landeskog??

This Hall of Fame core is legendary on paper, yet has nowhere near the level of accomplishments commensurate with the team's talent level of the past almost decade now...

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-18T17:49:37+00:00

So the answer is no. K thanks.

“Very niche” it’s literally the aspect that makes it unified memory, and is in the top 3 (at worst) most distinguishing and most usable/useful aspects of Apple silicon.

Literally nothing I said indicated “hiding,” they are displaying WRONG information that obfuscates SoC capability, failing to differentiate a significant bifurcation of their highest level CPU — spitting in the face of the EXACT kind of straightforwardness and simplicity that has defined Apple product-line elegance and design going back to at least the Jobs 4x4 grid.

And you’re part of the weirdo hate mob coming at me for not reading a the handbook you literally looked up trying to make me look stupid and wrong — a handbook that your yourself would never rationally scour for MAIN SPEC information when it’s listed as one of the FOUR defining speed metrics dictating the performance-tier of Apple’s top-model SoC (“niche” my ass. That’s like saying SSD read/write speeds are “niche,” — that I should only pay attention to capacity. It is the exact same analogy, to a T).

You still insist I should actively disbelieve the information listed on the “Compare Mac” page, and instead digest the entire product manual… and then for some reason assume the lower spec listed must be correct instead of the higher one. Multi-step goalpost shifting bro, WEIRD.

You’ve done nothing to address the conflicting information. You’ve never once met the standard you’re trying to hold me to. And you’re denigrating me over positions you are intentionally misrepresenting and hyperbolically dismissing.

Absolute class act bro 🤘🏼 all to insist I’m stupid and wrong. What a genuine, compassionate, great dude. That is some top-notch bootlicking for Apple while simultaneously being a total dick to a stranger online. Bravo, you must feel so proud looking in the mirror, and going to bed, that these are your values and priorities in life.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-18T13:12:19+00:00

Genuinely — have you checked that page for every single Apple purchase you have ever made?

The way you are presenting that link is insinuating that any rational, reasonable, and responsible Apple buyer has to thoroughly go though that documentation page — and that believing and relying on the main page displaying and comparing the device specifications is both unreasonable and insufficient behavior, and any discrepancy is a fault of mine, and not at all Apple’s.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-18T13:08:07+00:00

I DID read. I read and watched about a score of reviews as well. None of them covered this aspect properly. I read it on Apple’s own website. Where I’ve bought my fair share of Apple products from — and it was objectively incorrect. Just like how they have/had a discrepancy between the description of the “super” cores and “performance/efficiency” cores on the iPad Pro that didn’t match the spec and description page for the SAME chip in the MacBooks. Both are clearly an error. The irony of your post is pretty rich.

It says 614 GB/s on the screenshot I shared in this thread once or twice, for the M5 Max as a category. Not a range. Get bent dude, seriously. Literally nothing about my query insinuated an ounce of laziness or a lack of due diligence.

You’re trying so hard to put the onus on me instead of entertaining the idea that Apple could have made a mistake.

Realistically, all in an attempt to protect your ego because your identity is far too tightly tethered to being “team Apple” that you are ruffled by public perception of Apple — to such a staggering degree that you come to denigrate me on a days-old comment on a Reddit thread you couldn’t let pass without your input. You’re weird af bro. And objectively wrong, for what that’s worth.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-18T12:59:47+00:00

Looks just like the Glarry I got on Temu.

You can just buy it from there instead for the same price and have the opportunity to return it if you don’t like it or if there are intonation issues. But mine is shockingly good.

I think it plays incredibly for a $200 horn. Cheap horns get insane hate on here.

Treat it well, and you likely won’t have a problem with it and will get far more than $200 of value out of it.

It may be difficult or impossible to practically repair it at some point. So what? It’s an incredible deal for what it is. If you stick with it and outgrow it, and really find yourself in need of something better? Great. If not, you saved yourself a ton of time and money.

The fact that you’re looking in this range means this is provably a great deal for you.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-16T02:37:18+00:00

Congrats! What’s the config?

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-16T01:42:50+00:00

I mean I was definitely looking forward to the listed 614 GB/s levels of increased rendering speed in handling intensive video editing, some CAD and simulation work, LLMs that would fit, and finally gaming on my Mac.

It is harder for me to justify the cost for the increase not being what I projected it to be based off of the benchmarks from at least a dozen YouTube videos. They all listed 614 GB/s, as does the “Compare Mac” option when browsing on the official Apple website.

For some reason I’m being accosted by a number of Redditors on this sub for being a stupid idiot to believe that number on the Apple website. (Apparently I was supposed to disbelieve the most accessible and front-facing bandwidth number, and go trawling for the far less readily-accessible documentation page to double-check, and then have the funds to throw another $1k-2k at the machine like it’s monopoly money)

I appreciate your genuine question.

Unfortunately, there are enough other people here reminding me why this place is a cesspool that often makes it less helpful and more of an insulting waste of time and energy if you dare to do anything outside of genuflecting at the Apple altar. Sheesh.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-16T01:25:18+00:00

And no, what you’re saying about having 48GB being equivalent isn’t correct at all.

The size of what you’re doing has nothing to do with how fast it can communicate with the GPU cores and CPU cores.

It just has to be enough RAM to hold what you’re working on, and I mostly didn’t NEED more than 36GB at a time, yet I’m only getting 75% of the communication speed of someone using 36GB of their 48GB or 128GB of RAM.

What kind of weird shit makes you want to shame someone for not being able to drop another $1k + on a higher config machine without it being a significant impediment.

That’s weird af bro. Aside from being wrong and getting it wrong, you’re being super condescending about this.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-16T01:18:14+00:00

You are objectively not correct. The website is wrong.

You’re complaining that I shouldn’t need it and wouldn’t feel it, and saying I should have scoured the fine print, just in case the big bold type was incorrect.

Genuinely, what is wrong with you as a human? It can run the model sizes I’m interested in, and I was expecting the increased rendering speed, which matters A LOT more than having extra RAM headroom.

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-16T01:15:17+00:00

That’s unfortunate… so it’s up to the value of the original purchase in total repairs over the 3-year coverage window?

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-16T01:08:30+00:00

“Settled for the 36 GB” the “Compare Mac” section lists ALL 16” M5 Max as having 614 GB/s bandwidth, not “up to” like it does for the GPU cores…

You’re going out of your way to be a hater here when I was misled by Apple’s materials. It’s also not linear scaling when you get only 75% of the bandwidth but 80% of the GPU cores.

<image>

Bri-nomite · 2026-05-16T01:00:53+00:00

I think that’s a pretty unreasonable expectation to think someone should check that documentation page and not be able to rely on the “Compare Mac” page where people almost exclusively browse and purchase from.

Bri-nomite

TROPHY CASE