Yahoo.com's Mount Puckmore: Buffalo

[inkman]

bob corkum, bob corkum, bob corkum and sabretooth the mascot.

There was nothing wrong with Bob Corkum. Somehow a segment of the Sabres fanbase has equated his name with the organ-eye-zation's failures. My list, minus one of those names, is a closer representation.

[Sabretooth]

miller, really?

 

Yes. Have a problem?

[SabresneedaCup]

Yes. Have a problem?

no its just funny this guy has one good year and your puttin him on the all time list.

[Sabretooth]

no its just funny this guy has one good year and your puttin him on the all time list.

 

That must be scary.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhCD6FtHbqo&feature=related

[shrader]

But what the carver correct Miller's eyes and not have them misaligned?

[Stoner]

no its just funny this guy has one good year and your puttin him on the all time list.

 

No, he's putting him on freakin' Mount Puckmore!

[Sabretooth]

But what the carver correct Miller's eyes and not have them misaligned?

 

 

No, he's putting him on freakin' Mount Puckmore!

 

I must be appeasing Miller Time.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NumtSfuGkaI

[Stoner]

Beat me to it. Time to check that fact.

 

I figured Islanders-Sabres-Rangers, no chance he won a Cup. I looked anyway, thinking maybe he snuck in at the end of the Islander dynasty.

 

Anyway, I was thinking if I could put anyone up there, not just players, I'd go with Seymour, Ted, Rick and Gil. Now I'm wondering what kind of franchise is this, where three of the four faces of the team are not players? Has it been more myth than substance all these years?

[jpgr909]

...and one of two names not mentioned yet - Danny Gare or Mike Ramsey.

 

Hey...!

 

In alphabetical order:

 

Hasek / LaFontaine / Perreault / Ramsey

[static70]

you know you're a hockey fan when; You tell the judge during divorce proceedings that getting rid of your wife was just a salary dump, she got old and slow, and she needed to be bought out. Got to bring in younger legs...someone a little more flashy

[shrader]

I figured Islanders-Sabres-Rangers, no chance he won a Cup. I looked anyway, thinking maybe he snuck in at the end of the Islander dynasty.

 

Anyway, I was thinking if I could put anyone up there, not just players, I'd go with Seymour, Ted, Rick and Gil. Now I'm wondering what kind of franchise is this, where three of the four faces of the team are not players? Has it been more myth than substance all these years?

 

He came in right after their run. His rookie year was the first year of the Oilers' run. His big claim to fame in the playoffs was always the 4OT goal he scored against the Caps.

 

I have absolutely no problem with two non-players being the faces of the franchise. Seymour is a no brainer and I think a lot of teams would fall back on a founder like that. Then when it comes to RJ, he's the only guy who has essentially been there since day one. It doesn't matter how old anyone is, if you were a Sabre fan at any point, you all know exactly who he is.

[thesportsbuff]

Then when it comes to RJ, he's the only guy who has essentially been there since day one. It doesn't matter how old anyone is, if you were a Sabre fan at any point, you all know exactly who he is.

 

Could make a case for Ted Darling, too, then.

[jpgr909]

Then when it comes to RJ, he's the only guy who has essentially been there since day one.

Rip Simonick...?

[SwampD]

I figured Islanders-Sabres-Rangers, no chance he won a Cup. I looked anyway, thinking maybe he snuck in at the end of the Islander dynasty.

 

Anyway, I was thinking if I could put anyone up there, not just players, I'd go with Seymour, Ted, Rick and Gil. Now I'm wondering what kind of franchise is this, where three of the four faces of the team are not players? Has it been more myth than substance all these years?

Doesn't this actually make perfect sense? It's certainly how the team has been run for the last 12 years. Let good players that we like go because the system, coach, GM and owner are more important.

[Stoner]

Doesn't this actually make perfect sense? It's certainly how the team has been run for the last 12 years. Let good players that we like go because the system, coach, GM and owner are more important.

 

Very well said.

[DR HOLLIDAY]

Perreault, Mike Ramsey, Pat Lafontaine and Mike Peca.

[shrader]

Could make a case for Ted Darling, too, then.

 

He unfortunately doesn't bridge the gap anywhere near as well. Have you ever actually heard him call a game?

[calti]

Four players to "define" the franchise, or to "glorify" it? If we want to glorify it, you've got guys like Perrault, LaFontaine, etc. What type of player "defines" a team with zero championships after 40 seasons? Maybe Tim Connolly or Maxim Afinogenov? A lot of potential, a few good memories, but nothing to show for it that anyone else would envy. Throw Quinn and Regier up there too. Feckless, weak, timid, incompetent, and resumes completely lacking accomplishments of any kind.

 

At this point in the team's history, I think Artem Kruikov is the ultimate Sabre. Not ringing a bell? He's the soft, concussion-prone Russian forward the Sabres picked in the first round in 2000 when Brooks Orpik (the local big, tough defenseman) was still on the board (and went to Pittsburgh a couple picks later). Orpik went on to help Pittsburgh win the Cup and Kruikov never played in the NHL. He's a fine example of the type of players the Sabres gravitate to and the results they get.

 

sad but true

[mphs mike]

He unfortunately doesn't bridge the gap anywhere near as well. Have you ever actually heard him call a game?

 

 

Yes - I heard him call plenty of games, but recognize that I'm in an ever increasing minority.

[deluca67]

This is a great question that I have been thinking about all weekend. I think the first person up there has to be Punch Imlach. He brought this organization instant credibility and had them in the Finals very quickly. I'm thinking now - Implach - Seymour - Gilbert - Hasek as my Sabres Mount Puckmore.

[Bullwinkle]

He took the Blues to the finals multiple times. That team was far and away the "best of the rest" in the early expansion days. He also won a SC w/ Pittsburgh. The only team he DIDN'T get to the Finals was Buffalo. That's also the only team he wore both the GM and Coach's hats.

 

You're right, he sucked.

 

He didn't "suck" but he isn't the hero you make him out to be either.

 

Look at that St. Louis team for example. They were totally dominated in every final they entered. And the only reason they even made the finals was because the NHL put all of the expansion teams in one conference and all the good teams in the other (Clarence Campbell's "genius" at work). They were swept four straight almost every time to my recollection.

 

His only real successes came with excellent teams that were in place when he arrived.

[Bullwinkle]

He unfortunately doesn't bridge the gap anywhere near as well. Have you ever actually heard him call a game?

 

Actually I didn't think he was a good announcer before his illness. So I agree with you.

[Taro T]

He didn't "suck" but he isn't the hero you make him out to be either.

 

Look at that St. Louis team for example. They were totally dominated in every final they entered. And the only reason they even made the finals was because the NHL put all of the expansion teams in one conference and all the good teams in the other (Clarence Campbell's "genius" at work). They were swept four straight almost every time to my recollection.

 

His only real successes came with excellent teams that were in place when he arrived.

That St. Louis team absolutely dominated it's 1/2 of the league for most of the time that Bowman was there. There was no way that any of the expansion teams were going to win the Stanley Cup back in the 60's, but the Blues gave a game effort. In '68 they took Montreal to OT twice, and lost the other 2 by 1 goal. That's the same Montreal team that went 8-1 getting to the Finals. I wouldn't exactly call losing by 1 goal each game to a team that finished 24 points above them in the standings (playing against tougher competition on the way to those 24 extra points) and had ~8 future HoF'ers on its roster being "totally dominated," although they should have been totally dominated.

 

In '69, they won their conference by 19 points in a season where everyone played a balanced schedule. They finished 12 games over 0.500 when nobody else in their conference could break 70 points and they went 8-0 getting to the Finals that year.

 

They got crushed by Boston in '70, but so did Chicago in the semis.

 

Given the nature of how the league stocked the expansion teams in '67, what Bowman did with the Blues was pretty impressive.

 

No doubt he had great talent to work with in his other stops, but he still had to get the job done. The list of guys that were given "great" teams and couldn't get it done once, much less 9 times is pretty long. And as mentioned in my previous post, the only place that he didn't get to the finals was where he was coach and GM all by himself. Yes, he had been GM for part of his time in St. Louis, but he had Lynn Patrick looking over his shoulder the whole time. Had he had a quality GM in Buffalo, there is little doubt in my mind that he'd have gotten them to the finals as well.

 

He coached the only 2 teams ever to break 130 points. He also coached the only 60's era expansion team to break 0.500 a single time in those 4 years he coached one and he did it 3 years out of 4.

 

Yeah, those Canadiens dynasty teams were stacked, and they got to play against teams like Washington and KC. But they also had to play teams like Boston, Buffalo, and Filly. The only time they played a "weak" team in the Finals was when they got to play the Rangers that had beaten the Isles that had a great team that year; and they had to beat the Bruins to get to the Finals. It's not like they got to play Vancouver or Minnesota in the Finals.

 

He's one of only 3 coaches ever to win 4 or more consecutive Stanley Cups. There's a lot of other coaches that have been set up like Bowman was, but there weren't very many that could actually get it done. And when you look at what happened to each of the teams after he left, they all tailed off in results upon his departure. During his tenure those teams won a combined 9 SC's in 30 seasons. Since he left, you've got all of 4 in a combined ~120 seasons. And he's been a "consultant" on one of those 4 teams. (He was "consulting" for Chicago as well this past year. Somehow, since '73, except when he was w/ the Sabres, he always finds a way to be near the best team in hockey.

[ECHL]

Perreault, Mike Ramsey, Pat Lafontaine and Mike Peca.

Perrealt, Lafontaine, Hasek, Earl of Bud.

[Sabre Dance]

Well played and if we use your definition spot on. There are several more good examples of these kind of draft choices that never played in the NHL in their 40 year history. To be fair though we may have to contrast it to how many other teams have had these same type of flame out choices through the years. Ahhh on second thought never mind fair this is a fans opinion board and your opinion should be as welcome here as anyones.

 

Every team in existence makes bad draft choices once in a while. The Sabres seem to do really well at it, but worse than that is the bad draft choices they've made with very good players still available (such as the Kruikov/Orpik situation previously described). Awful, really.

 

The four individuals who define the Sabres, IMHO are: Punch Imlach, Gilbert Perreault, Pat LaFontaine and Jim Schoenfeld. I may be giving too much weight to early Sabres history, but Punch was the guy who decided to build the Sabres in the image of his Toronto Maple Leafs, who were Stanley Cup champs in 1967. The Sabres entered the league in 1970 and were already in the Finals in just their fifth season. Perreault was a huge part of that early success, and was a team leader for most of his 17 seasons with the club. Early in his career, Schoenfeld stood up to Wayne Cashman of the Big, Bad Bruins and took him on after they both crashed through the Zamboni doors in the Aud. That showed the rest of the league that the Sabres wouldn't be pushed around, even though they were the new kids on the block. LaFontaine began his career elsewhere, but when he came to Buffalo, he embraced the team, its fans and the city. He is still regarded as one of the best Sabres of all time, not just for his play on the ice, but for what he gave back to the city.

 

Despite his stellar play, I wouldn't include Hasek, as he never seemed to be a real part of the team or the city. He came in from Chicago, stood on his head for several seasons here and then headed off to Detroit to win a Cup.