reckoning said:
Firstly, Bowman left because he was angry at not getting the Habs GM job, not because he thought Buffalo had better goaltending.
Where did it say, "Bowman left Montreal because Buffalo had better goaltending? Let me save you the time, it didn't.
After leaving St. Louis, Bowman always took jobs with teams, which were on the verge or very well-established (Montreal, Pittsburgh, Detroit). Buffalo was kind of the exception, because better results were expected. By the same token, conditions were less-than-stellar in Montreal, during that period. He probably also recognized the fact that it was a good time to leave.
reckoning said:
Secondly, in the Pollock thread you said that Montreal would have been just as good with other goalies than Dryden, now you`re saying goaltending was the problem after Dryden left; which is it?
Why are you making a connection when there is none? The other thread it was that Rogie or Espo could've done just as well or better than Dryden. (If somebody wants to debate it, that's why it was posted.) Here, the message was that there was spotty goaltending after Dryden left until Patrick Roy emerged.
reckoning said:
Well, after Luce left Buffalo they were still near the top of the NHL in PK so that answers the question of how Ramsay would do without Luce. Yes, the Sabres PK probably wouldn`t have been as good with Perreault instead of Luce; then again Montreals PK wouldn`t have been as good with Larouche instead of Jarvis. What`s your point?
A joke went around Buffalo, that whenever a player wore the blue & gold, that resulted in an increase in estrogen levels. Not much that the Sabres did during the 80's was there anything to get too excited about.
reckoning said:
If you want to speculate on what-ifs then here`s one: What if Gainey gets drafted by Vancouver or St. Louis instead of Montreal?
Again, one little comment about Perrault. Geez, it's so terrible to speculate about what might have been... Sorry it bothered you.
reckoning said:
Gainey`s leadership played a role, as did Robinson`s, but to say the `89 Habs weren`t loaded with talent? Roy, Chelios, Smith, Walter, Naslund, Richer etc.; they were one of the most talented teams in the league.
...and Lemieux. Good team, but not exactly world beaters. For whatever it matters, the only Habs team in franchise history to allow the opposition to clinch a Cup in the Forum.
reckoning said:
What does someone`s coaching career have to do with their playing career. Al Arbour was a better coach than Brad Park, does that mean he was a better player?
OK, you're right, it means nothing. Gainey's understanding of the defensive aspects of the game had zero influence on the Stars.
If you don't care about the comment, why mention it?
reckoning said:
You`re saying that Ramsay`s reputation around the league was because of good ink from a couple of Buffalo papers nobody outside of Buffalo ever read.
How do you know what I'm saying? You're too busy inventing new arguments. It was about his reputation in Buffalo. You know...here he played his entire career.
Seeing as though Jim Kelley used to be the president of the Professional Hockey Writers Association, somebody must've paid attention. Why is this relevent? Well, again Ramsay was always the source for stories. Considering the team's tradition (during that era) of early spring golf, regular season plus-minus ratings amounted to squat.
reckoning said:
That`s sounds like something chooch would say about Gretzky.
Dunno enough about chooch's posts to know. However, if he's the one who posted about Gretzky over-celebrating hat tricks against losers goalies, like Mike Luit, in 8-3 blowouts, then he deserves at least a modicrum of respect.
reckoning said:
Combine that with the other snide comments you made about Ramsay (taught Ruff to be a company man?)
Are you denying it to be the case? At the expense of seeming immodest, if somebody else had posted that remark, I would've found it rather amusing.
reckoning said:
and you seem to have an obvious hatred towards him that goes deeper than his career as a hockey player.
No, he just doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breadth as many of the greats and is being overrated. You took a one-sentence comment, and obviously feel a lot stronger that Ramsay got slighted by it. OK, so Ramsay was better than Gainey. That's what you wanted to hear, right? You win, dude.