Fire Kevyn Adams

[Pimlach]

33 minutes ago, dudacek said:

 

I don’t see McLeod as a stop-gap.

I guess the way he plays will ultimately determine things, but his age, profile and the price they paid tells me they’re hoping he can be their 3C moving forward.

24 years old and 219 NHL games played: They’ve acquired him as he is about to enter his prime.

Maybe you are correct.  But we will have Helenius and Östlund in Rochester playing center so we shall see.  
 

McLeod’s size and versatility as a winger may keep him around longer, especially if he can take faceoffs. 

[dudacek]

13 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Maybe you are correct.  But we will have Helenius and Östlund in Rochester playing center so we shall see.  
 

McLeod’s size and versatility as a winger may keep him around longer, especially if he can take faceoffs. 

Good points.

McLeod forces them to earn that spot.

[Brawndo]

Historically it has been an easier transition for a center to become a winger in the NHL 

[French Collection]

2 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Historically it has been an easier transition for a center to become a winger in the NHL 

True.

As McLeod gets closer to 30 and the C prospects move up he could transition to a Girgensons like role.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Brawndo said:

Historically it has been an easier transition for a center to become a winger in the NHL 

Rodrigues being the exception that proves the rule.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, French Collection said:

True.

As McLeod gets closer to 30 and the C prospects move up he could transition to a Girgensons like role.

Or you can just use him for 5 years and dump him which is what real NHL teams do all the time to guys. 

[Taro T]

29 minutes ago, seer775 said:

You'd think we could find someone worth keeping instead...

Pretty sure that's what they'll do w/ the top 2 lines.  But 5 years is an eternity for many bottom 6ers.

[dudacek]

On 7/8/2024 at 1:50 PM, Taro T said:

Pretty sure that's what they'll do w/ the top 2 lines.  But 5 years is an eternity for many bottom 6ers.

The top 10 games played by a Sabres bottom-sixer

• Rob Ray 889
• Girgensons 688
• Ruff 608
• Mair 498
• Gaustad 479
• May 425
• Larsson 392
• Varada 376
• Kaleta 365
• Barnaby 317

HM: Ellis 286 (the Matt Ellis of top 10 bottom-sixers

[Pimlach]

16 hours ago, dudacek said:

The top 10 games played by a Sabres bottom-sixer

• Rob Ray 889
• Girgensons 688
• Ruff 608
• Mair 498
• Gaustad 479
• May 425
• Larsson 392
• Varada 376
• Kaleta 365
• Barnaby 317

HM: Ellis 286 (the Matt Ellis of top 10 bottom-sixers

Are Luce and Ramsay considered bottom six?    They were 3rd line players and first line PK.  They played a lot of shut down minutes. 
 

In the 70’s we did not talk in terms of bottom 6, top 6. 

Edited August 12 by Pimlach

[GASabresIUFAN]

6 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Are Luce and Ramsay considered bottom six?    They were 3rd line players and first line PK.  They played a lot of shut down minutes. 
 

In the 70’s we did talk in terms of bottom 6, top 6. 

Most of that list looks like primarily 4th line players who occasionally played up or in Ruff’s case, played defense.  

Luce and Ramsay were definitely 3rd line players.  

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Are Luce and Ramsay considered bottom six?    They were 3rd line players and first line PK.  They played a lot of shut down minutes. 
 

In the 70’s we did talk in terms of bottom 6, top 6. 

Luce and Ramsay had a 50 goal scorer on their line.  Ramsay had the unfortunate timing of having been by far the best defensive forward in the league not named Bob Gainey otherwise he'd likely be a HoFer as HE'd been the guy that won all the Selkes when that trophy started to get awarded. 

By quality they were top 6, not 3rd liners.

[dudacek]

I guess this is just another example of how the same hockey terms have different meanings to different people.

The Luce line may have been the matchup line, but by no measure where they bottom-sixers in terms of ice time, scoring or value to the team.

The Luce of the French Connection era scored more than 56 points for 6 straight seasons and was pretty clearly the team's 2nd-best centre.

[MISabresFan]

3 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Are Luce and Ramsay considered bottom six?    They were 3rd line players and first line PK.  They played a lot of shut down minutes. 
 

In the 70’s we did talk in terms of bottom 6, top 6. 

I never thought of that line as bottom six.  

[Pimlach]

6 hours ago, Taro T said:

Luce and Ramsay had a 50 goal scorer on their line.  Ramsay had the unfortunate timing of having been by far the best defensive forward in the league not named Bob Gainey otherwise he'd likely be a HoFer as HE'd been the guy that won all the Selkes when that trophy started to get awarded. 

By quality they were top 6, not 3rd liners.

Agree that by quality with were top 6 by todays standards, and even as 3rd liners for those strong Sabres teams, they logged a lot of minutes.  

More on Ramsay.   He played for 7 seasons before they had a Selke Trophy or he would have had a few more.   He was every bit as good as Gainey who got a lot more notoriety playing on Five Cup winning teams in Montreal.   

Ramsey scored more career goals and had 171 more career points while playing 90 less games.  Both were ironmen,  Ramsay did not miss a game for over 10 seasons.  

 

Edited August 12 by Pimlach

[Pimlach]

5 hours ago, dudacek said:

I guess this is just another example of how the same hockey terms have different meanings to different people.

The Luce line may have been the matchup line, but by no measure where they bottom-sixers in terms of ice time, scoring or value to the team.

The Luce of the French Connection era scored more than 56 points for 6 straight seasons and was pretty clearly the team's 2nd-best centre.

Yes, my question was rhetorical because Ramsay is one of the Sabres all time leaders in games played, and he was technically by todays terms on the 3rd line, even though that line got lots of minutes.  

[tom webster]

6 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Yes, my question was rhetorical because Ramsay is one of the Sabres all time leaders in games played, and he was technically by todays terms on the 3rd line, even though that line got lots of minutes.  

They didn’t keep TOI back then but on the 74/75 Sabres, Luce, Ramsay and Gare were the 4th, 7th and 8th highest scorers. I’d be shocked if they didn’t play second line minutes.

[dudacek]

12 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Yes, my question was rhetorical because Ramsay is one of the Sabres all time leaders in games played, and he was technically by todays terms on the 3rd line, even though that line got lots of minutes.  

 

4 minutes ago, tom webster said:

They didn’t keep TOI back then but on the 74/75 Sabres, Luce, Ramsay and Gare were the 4th, 7th and 8th highest scorers. I’d be shocked if they didn’t play second line minutes.

As I spread my hockey cards across the bedroom floor in what I now call a depth chart, Gare/Luce/Ramsay was always the 2nd line 😁

Edited August 12 by dudacek

[Pimlach]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

 

As I spread my hockey cards across the bedroom floor in what I now call a depth chart, Gare/Luce/Ramsay was always the 2nd line 😁

I attended many home games in the 70's and it seemed like Meehan/ Lorentz /and whoever (McNab/ Dudley/etc) played the second shift a lot.  Obviously the Gare/Luce/Ramsay line played 2nd line minutes, Luce and Rammer killed penalties too, and Gare played PP, so that broke up the rotation quite a bit.  Especially  at home with the final line change, Luce's line would be called upon to shut down the other teams top line, adding minutes to their workload.  

Whatever it was called, they were excellent.