| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| andyhack |
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 15:43:27
I thought the recent exchange with MSC in that Pickup Hockey List - Comments thread raised an interesting question. The Bruins of '71 were a team of All-Stars, but how many of the guys on that team would have been All-Stars if they hadn't played on Orr's team.
In my opinion, Bucyk and Hodge would have never ever attained that status if they had been on, for example, the Minnesota North Stars of that era, a good but not great team, with of course noone near the level of Bobby Orr. On such a team, Espo maybe would have managed to be one of the top four centres in the league, but I am not so sure it would have been a shoe-in. Ratelle, Mikita, and though slowing, Beliveau and Keon, were there in the late 60s, and then in the early 70s Perreault and Clarke, and later Dionne arrived. Phil probably would have cracked the top 4 anyway. I am not questioning that he was a great player as clearly he was one of the best slot guys ever, and you have to give him his due for leading the '72 Orr-less Team Canada to victory. But I really wonder if he would have been anywhere near 150 points, or even 130 points. My guess is that, on a team like the North Stars, he maybe would have been battling with Ratelle and Mikita in the point race - perhaps a 100 point guy with maybe one or two near 120 point seasons. That's still very impressive indeed, but I think it raises the question of whether Espo is at least slightly overrated by many historically.
I'm not trying to say the Bruins of the early 70s were not very good. They were, of course, very good, and had an interesting cast of guys (Sanderson, Cashman, Pieface McKenzie to name a few). Most importantly, they had Orr! I do think, however, that Cheevers, is overrated historically and probably shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame (I think I just lost my invitation to Don Cherry’s place for dinner! ).
Willus, Pucknuts, Antroman, younger guys watching tapes, any comments?
|
| 26 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| willus3 |
Posted - 01/30/2008 : 07:45:32
I now have a few more vintage games.
A 71 Red Wings - Leafs game.
A 71 Rangers - Leafs game in April.
A 74 Bruins - Flyers game - game 2 of the finals.
I have some late 70's games too but can't remember exactly what they were. I haven't watched them all.
Bruins - Canadiens.
Sabre's - Islanders
Flyers - Islanders
A couple early 80's games
Oilers - Blackhawks, 82 or 83 I think it was.
There's one with the Nordiques too but can't remember who they were playing. I have to get time to watch them
The NHL network's vintage games combined with a PVR is allowing me to compile a decent video library. I'm really enjoying it.
"Curiosity killed the cat but for awhile, I was the suspect."
-- Steven Wright |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/26/2008 : 09:08:13
I got it Willus, thanks. Depending on how much my wife wants me to today, I am thinking of watching it either after the All Star Stuff tonight(to replace the late HNIC game) or tomorrow at 11:15am (to replace NHL football)
I am looking foward to it.
PS, I actually have a "Blackfalds Texeco" shirt. I bet you know how old that is!!!!
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| willus3 |
Posted - 01/25/2008 : 20:40:29
If others are interested in the DVD I mentioned let me know. I can't guarantee anything though.
"Curiosity killed the cat but for awhile, I was the suspect."
-- Steven Wright |
| willus3 |
Posted - 01/25/2008 : 20:37:58
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
I got the DVD the other day Willus. Thanks a lot!
I've watched a few parts, but haven't had a chance to sit down and watch the whole thing yet. Maybe this weekend.
I can already tell that Orr does a lot of little things great in this game (things that don't necessarily come across in points or stats). Also, there are a number of very interesting things aside from him (like seeing Brian Spencer play, Davie Keon with some really nice plays and Bernie Parent on his 26th birthday - he sure played alot better a few years later on the Flyers though)!
Really appreciate it. If you need something from the Hall of Fame or whatever, please let me know and I'll send you a return gift.
Dave Keon is awesome! You'll see how much I think of him in the Top 50 list soon.
I'm glad you noticed the little things Orr did. A lot of people would miss it and just notice how incredible he was at the obvious things.
I appreciate the thought about the HHOF Andy. No worries though. Just glad to spread the word about Orr's greatness.
"Curiosity killed the cat but for awhile, I was the suspect."
-- Steven Wright |
| admin |
Posted - 01/25/2008 : 19:10:54
Hey Willus, I just sent you my address. Love to have the DVD if possible. :-) |
| andyhack |
Posted - 01/25/2008 : 16:42:43
I got the DVD the other day Willus. Thanks a lot!
I've watched a few parts, but haven't had a chance to sit down and watch the whole thing yet. Maybe this weekend.
I can already tell that Orr does a lot of little things great in this game (things that don't necessarily come across in points or stats). Also, there are a number of very interesting things aside from him (like seeing Brian Spencer play, Davie Keon with some really nice plays and Bernie Parent on his 26th birthday - he sure played alot better a few years later on the Flyers though)!
Really appreciate it. If you need something from the Hall of Fame or whatever, please let me know and I'll send you a return gift.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 01/25/2008 : 14:49:18
Beans and Andyhack
Have you guys had a chance to watch the Bruins/Leafs game yet?
"Curiosity killed the cat but for awhile, I was the suspect."
-- Steven Wright |
| willus3 |
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 16:01:52
This is true Beans. I'm sure some peoples rankings are taken right from the career scoring list.
Stats are everything after all.
"Last time I went to the movies I was thrown out for bringing my own food. My argument was that the concession stand prices are outrageous. Besides, I haven't had a Bar-B-Que in a long time."
-- Steven Wright |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 15:31:29
Oh, I don't disagree Willus. The point I was trying to make was that most of the people who make these lists focus a lot on offense.
If Kurri had say 1000 points, he would not have been rated as high as 21st and if Robitaille had 1500 points, he would have been rated higher.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| willus3 |
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 15:18:16
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Another perfect Kurri example. He was what, #21 on the list?? What about Luc Robitaille?? #51. Kurri and Robitaille both averaged the same PPG while playing with Gretzky. Both were less without Gretzky. Based on the way the people who makes these lists think, if Robitaille would have played the amount of time with Gretzky that Kurri did (and Kurri as Robitaille) then it would have be Robitaille at #21 and Kurri at #51??
No I don't believe Robitaille would have been ranked that high. He was nowhere near the defensive player Kurri was. Kurri had a very decent two way game, which is precisely why he was paired with Gretzky according to Kurri and Sather. So Kurri could play defensively and put up points. Robitaille just put up points.
"Last time I went to the movies I was thrown out for bringing my own food. My argument was that the concession stand prices are outrageous. Besides, I haven't had a Bar-B-Que in a long time."
-- Steven Wright |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 14:37:33
Andy, I think you are right in the fact that the numbers don't make the player, but it does appear that through the modern era of hockey, stats are regarded as an indication as a players value. Not saying I agree with it, but it's true. Case in point, why is the Art Ross winner most often the Hart Winner???
Regardless, I think that being saing Espo is overrated is still not accurate. Being rated higher than Ratelle based on stats you can have an arguement to. I wonder if we would be saying this same arguement if Espo played for the Rangers through the 70's and Ratelle for the Bruins?? Regardless, you can't blame Espo for the super duper talent he played with no more than you can blame Ratelle for the lack of super duper talent he played with.
Another perfect Kurri example. He was what, #21 on the list?? What about Luc Robitaille?? #51. Kurri and Robitaille both averaged the same PPG while playing with Gretzky. Both were less without Gretzky. Based on the way the people who makes these lists think, if Robitaille would have played the amount of time with Gretzky that Kurri did (and Kurri as Robitaille) then it would have be Robitaille at #21 and Kurri at #51??
Again, I digress. I believe that this situation is more of an underrating of Ratelle than an overrating of Espo.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| andyhack |
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 13:26:08
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
The more I think about this the more I compare this to Gretzky/Kurri. Kurri put up some absolutely amazing numbers while playing with Gretzky and it's fair to say his numbers would not have been as good without Gretzky. But, like Gretzky, Orr, Howe, and so many other of the G.O.A.T's, the stats did not make them great. They are a symptom of their great play. Kurri was still a great player and would have produced fine numbers without playing with Gretzky. Playing with Gretzky, stratospheric numbers.
So, Andy, I totally hear your point. Do the old switch-a-roo with Ratelle and Esposito, and it is totally reasonable to think we talking about Ratelle with 150+ points and 76 goals, blah blah blah.
Mid-day thoughts as I take a break from a project.
You know what, Mr. Beans, you are absolutely 100% correct, there is indeed a similarity between Kurri and Espo. And moreover, you are absolutely 100% correct with your Ratelle comment! He would have had much much better numbers with Orr as a teammate.
But, the thing is, I think that is bad news for those who argue Espo is not overrated.
Kurri, with those great statistics, was ranked 21st overall on that top 60 list which triggered us to create our own list. Did you notice where Ratelle was on that list? Yes, the same Jean Ratelle that, as you suggest, would have also had "stratospheric" numbers had he played with Orr? Well, I just literally double-checked the list by copying it onto a Word file and using the Find Function to find the word Ratelle!!! He ain't on the list!!!!! But Espo is high up there and Kurri is 21st!
Stats don't by themselves make a player a great, true, but it seems they sure help with people's impressions of those players! Espo and Kurri, with their "stratospheric" numbers, which even the biggest Espo/Kurri fans in the world have to acknowledge come in part from their superstar teammates, are high up on the list, and yet a very solid guy with strong consistent numbers for many many years actually, who could play effectively defensively too, and who was one of the classiest guys ever to lace up skates, isn't even on the list.
Again, Espo and Kurri were great players, and I think they would have been, to a certain degree, great, even had they never met their respective superstar teammates. But guys, I mean, this is TELLING (with well-deserved capital letters).
Yes, part of the answer I suppose is that Ratelle is underrated, but I think there are two sides to this coin, and the other side is just what Beans so eloquently describes, "stratespheric numbers". Those numbers have, in my opinion, clearly helped influence hockey fan's and the media's impressions of players, regardless of actual differences in abilties, etc. from players with lesser numbers.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 01/14/2008 : 17:08:46
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I think that saying Orr made Espo is more than a stretch. You said it yourself, take away Orr and Espo is still a 120 point guy. That's not too shabby.
I could agree if you said Espo was a great player and with Orr he was amazing. But to say that Orr did it all is not fair to the talents that Esposito had.
Thank you Beans. That is exactly what I was trying to say. Andy, Willus you must be OVERSTATING this. 120 points in any era is AMAZING! They way you guys are talking it is like you're comparing Esposito to Cheechoo!
We aren't overstating it Leigh. And comparing Esposito to Mikita and Ratelle is nothing like comparing him to Cheechoo.
I'll tell you what. I have a 1971 game between Boston and Toronto. I will make copies on DVD and mail them to the following people if they would like. Leigh, Andyhack, Beans, Pucknuts and Paintrain(because I know he'd appreciate it). This game is indicative of what happened night in and night out on that Boston team. If you're interested in having a copy of the game send me an email with your mailing address and I'll send you a copy.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/14/2008 : 15:22:30
The more I think about this the more I compare this to Gretzky/Kurri. Kurri put up some absolutely amazing numbers while playing with Gretzky and it's fair to say his numbers would not have been as good without Gretzky. But, like Gretzky, Orr, Howe, and so many other of the G.O.A.T's, the stats did not make them great. They are a symptom of their great play. Kurri was still a great player and would have produced fine numbers without playing with Gretzky. Playing with Gretzky, stratospheric numbers.
So, Andy, I totally hear your point. Do the old switch-a-roo with Ratelle and Esposito, and it is totally reasonable to think we talking about Ratelle with 150+ points and 76 goals, blah blah blah.
However, I stand by the fact that Espo was an amazing player. It's not like you could have put a pylon in the middle of the ice and Orr would have bounced 76 pucks off of it into the net(even if Willus think he could have). Espo had amazing talents. That allowed him to produce, and produce even higher playing with Orr. And it's not like one can say that Ratelle or Mikita were lesser players because they did not have the numbers. They had fine numbers of their own, just not statospheric numbers that can be produced when playing with a guy like Bobby Orr.
Just like Jari Kurri did in the 80's...................
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| andyhack |
Posted - 01/14/2008 : 14:21:54
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
120 points in any era is AMAZING! They way you guys are talking it is like you're comparing Esposito to Cheechoo!
No, not Cheechoo. But maybe towards Mikita and Ratelle and a few others that may not be mentioned for a number of rounds. Remember too, I said something like maybe the odd season he would get up to about 120 points. Generally, I think he would have been about 100, not too far away from Mikita and Ratelle. But those are indeed still GREAT numbers, I don't deny that.
There is a bit of an over-reaction going on here, perhaps because Phil is a Canadian icon. I certainly think he deserves the label as one of the "Greats", but so do many others. Am I going to put Phil up ahead of some of those other great players because of 152 points, 76 goals, some other amazing seasons statistically? Maybe not, and part of the reason is that I think the difference between a 90 to 110 point guy (like guys such as Ratelle and Mikita, who could do certain things Phil couldn't do by the way) and a 135 plus guy like Phil had a LOT to do with Bobby Orr.
What I'm saying is not really all that controversial. Is it so hard to believe that Phil's numbers go from somehwere between 100 to 120 (yes, again, VERY impressive!), to 130, 140, 150, because he was playing with a guy that I think we can all acknowledge was a superduperstar?
As for Pucknuts post, I agree, Phil should get credit for taking advantage of the great situation he found himself in. Absolutely. That, in and of itself, of course does not make him overrated. In fact, it is too his credit. BUT, I do the think the numbers, 152 points etc. cloud the picture a little here in terms of his overall ability as a player. Just my opinion. I was curious if anyone agreed with me, and apparently most don't. I guess I have to continue thinking he is "slightly overrated" then.
Last point - Pucknuts, excellent point on Bucyk's second last season - the guy was obviously great even without Orr, and maybe his lack of All-Star selections in his pre-Orr years had to do with stiff competition in the 60s at the left wing position (Hull and Mahovlich were around, to name two). I am not trying to tarnish Bucyk's or Hodge's record at all. But I think they are in a far different category than Messier and Coffey (for the reasons I have already mentioned), and, for that matter Kurri and Anderson too (Edit, in Bucyk's case, a different category from Kurri and Anderson at least in terms of the fact that Bucyk was getting older on that early '70s team, so, though an All-Star, lets face it, he was an aging All-Star - still VERY impressive though, so you have to give it to him). |
| leigh |
Posted - 01/14/2008 : 13:18:55
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I think that saying Orr made Espo is more than a stretch. You said it yourself, take away Orr and Espo is still a 120 point guy. That's not too shabby.
I could agree if you said Espo was a great player and with Orr he was amazing. But to say that Orr did it all is not fair to the talents that Esposito had.
Thank you Beans. That is exactly what I was trying to say. Andy, Willus you must be OVERSTATING this. 120 points in any era is AMAZING! They way you guys are talking it is like you're comparing Esposito to Cheechoo! |
| Antroman |
Posted - 01/14/2008 : 11:56:49
Esposito stands alone in my books. I was an avid Orr fan back then and you could never take a single thing away from Orr. He is the best player I have ever seen although I would say that him and Gretzky are 1a and 1b. Espo was a superstar, make no mistake, he was very effective all the time even when Orr was sidelined quite often with his reoccuring knee problems. Orr was nowhere to be seen in the '72 Summit Series and Espo was our leader and best player. During that era there was no forward you would want more to be on your powerplay than big Phil. |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 01/14/2008 : 11:56:18
Orr, and Esposito complimented each other as good as any other forward / defenseman combination. No different than Gretzky, and Coffey. In Fact I remember reading a post on this board about how if it was not for Coffey, Gretzky would not have done as well also…
Either player would have done well with or without each other just not as well.
Did other players play better because of Orr, I will say yes. But look at Bucyk he still managed 83 points at the age of 41 when Orr only played 10 games, not bad in my books…
Is Esposito overrated, you are only as good as the talent that was given you. When you find someone that elevates your game whether spiritually or on the ice, and you can take advantage of it, should that make you overrated, not in my mind…
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/14/2008 : 09:47:17
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Substitute any 100 point man of that time in for Esposito and they put up ridiculous numbers too. It wouldn't have mattered who it was. Orr created so many opportunities for everyone it was mind boggling.I think what happens alot is that people hear the anecdotes about Orr and assume they must be hyperbole because it couldn't possibly be true. Orr made Espo. It is that simple. But it comes down to this again. You had to have seen it to really understand.
Esposito shattered Hull's records but you don't hear anyone say he's better than Hull. That's because the people who saw both know how Espo accomplished what he did. Take Orr away and substitute Carol Vadnais or Dallas Smith ( a couple of very good defensemen) and Esposito becomes a 120 point man tops.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore
I think that saying Orr made Espo is more than a stretch. You said it yourself, take away Orr and Espo is still a 120 point guy. That's not too shabby.
I could agree if you said Espo was a great player and with Orr he was amazing. But to say that Orr did it all is not fair to the talents that Esposito had.
And I have heard people say that Espo was better than Hull. In fact, most of the people I have ever talked to about Hull say that he wasn't a very good player as much as he was a great scorer.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| willus3 |
Posted - 01/14/2008 : 08:00:54
Substitute any 100 point man of that time in for Esposito and they put up ridiculous numbers too. It wouldn't have mattered who it was. Orr created so many opportunities for everyone it was mind boggling.I think what happens alot is that people hear the anecdotes about Orr and assume they must be hyperbole because it couldn't possibly be true. Orr made Espo. It is that simple. But it comes down to this again. You had to have seen it to really understand.
Esposito shattered Hull's records but you don't hear anyone say he's better than Hull. That's because the people who saw both know how Espo accomplished what he did. Take Orr away and substitute Carol Vadnais or Dallas Smith ( a couple of very good defensemen) and Esposito becomes a 120 point man tops.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
| andyhack |
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 20:58:24
Well, goin to sleep now, but my last comment is just to repeat that the Oilers of the 80s were truly a team of "All-Stars", in the real sense of the expression. Messier and Coffey DEFINITELY would have been All-Stars on any Gretzky-less team, and they proved it. With Espo you can only say he PROBABLY (not definitely) would have been an All-Star without Orr, and with Bucyk and Hodge, in my opinion, you can say PROBABLY NOT. There is a significant difference between the two teams that way, as I see it anyway.
Leigh, I really don't think Espo helped Orr nearly as much as Orr helped Espo. My guess is that Phil would agree with me. |
| leigh |
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 20:40:48
Andy, I think the very obvious answer is yes. But couldn't the same be said for Orr? Did Esposito made Orr better? Probably.
The interesting thing about Esposito's numbers is that they increased, peaked, and then declined very naturally; with his best numbers being essentially in the middle of his career. Not to mention he had very respectable numbers at the beginning AND end of his career, although his plus minus went south the after his big injury year in 75/76 (coinciding with the end of his time with Orr by the way)
As with most of the greats of the game...were they as great as they were because they were on great teams, or were their teams great because of them? The answer has to be yes to both. I'm not trying to cop out here, I'm just saying that timing is everything. Most of the great players we talk about were a part of some sort of dynasty (or near dynasty); Red Wings, Penguins, Oilers, Islanders, Canadiens, Bruins, etc. Dynasties don't exist because of ONE player.
This is why when a player so clearly BLOWS AWAY the competition in some way, we have to admit that there was something special there. Considering Esposito's numbers he must have been something special.
So anyway, maybe Orr was as successful as he was because of Esposito. Maybe both their numbers are bloated because of the teams they were on...surely this was the case with Gretzky, no? |
| andyhack |
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 19:45:17
Beans,
I wasn't questioning that Espo is one of the great centres in the history of the game. But we are dealing with varying levels of greatness on this list we are creating. Stan Mikita and Jean Ratelle, the guys I say perhaps Phil would have been battling with had he been a centre on the Minnesota North Stars back then, were GREAT centres too.
My point (one of them anyway) is that you can not say with nearly as much certainty,
"Phil Esposito would have been an All-Star on a team without Orr"
as you can say that,
"Mark Messier would have been an All-Star on team without Gretzky".
Messier, of course, actually was not only an All-Star, but an MVP, on a few teams without Gretzky.
As for '67/68, (Edit - sorry, I see now you were talking about 69), he was injured for part of that year so he only got 31 points in 46 games (by the way, still pretty good if you consider what defensemen were producing offensively back then). So actually I think Espo's total that year is about right for what I am trying to say. Without Orr (for about half a season anyway) Phil was an 84 point guy - very very good number, no doubt. In later years, as he got better, if there were no Orr maybe he would have gotten 100 or even up to about 120 or so (a number which a guy like Ratelle, but for an injury in his best season, would have reached too by the way).
What I'm talking about here Beans-san, is the gap between that 100 to 120 total and the 150, 145 and 130 plus point seasons Phil had. That gap, I think can probably, in big part, be attributed to that blonde guy from Parry Sound. But, that does NOT mean that Bobby Orr made Espo great. He was great regardless of Orr. It does mean though that Orr may have helped his position greatly historically, and that perhaps Espo is a bit overrated if we think about it in those terms.
Edit - fyi - here is blurb on Ratelle from Wikipedia
Ratelle was poised to beat out Boston Bruins' legend Phil Esposito for the scoring title in 1972 before he lost fifteen games due to an injury, but came back for the Stanley Cup finals against Boston to lead his team. Only Esposito, Bobby Orr and John Bucyk had before then had scored as many points in league history as Ratelle had managed in his shortened season. His 109 points that season remained a Rangers' scoring record until 2006, when Jaromir Jagr broke the mark.
Edit - I was talking about Bucyk becoming an All-Star in his 12th year, not espo - as I have said, i think Espo probably would have been an All_Star without Orr - but it is not as crystal clear as Messier without Gretzky
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 19:14:05
I think it might be a little short sighted to say that Espo was great because he played with Orr. Does the same apply to Anderson, Kurri, Messier, and Coffey because they played with Gretzky?
He was an All Star in 1968, which was his 4th year in the league, not his 12th. And he was the first player to score more than 100 points in season in 69(when Orr had but 64 points.) He still one of only 5 guys to have more than 150 points in a season and only 6 guys to score 76 of more goals in a season.
Of course, this is all based off of stats and what I read because I have not watched a ton of Esposito. It's still pretty hard to argue that the guy had nearly 1600 reg season points. He had over 1000 points in 631 games with the Bruins. I would say that he is still one of the best ever, let alone one of the best of his time.
I woud say that very much like Kurri and Gretzky, Espo and Orr both benefited from playing with each other. Orr is still the better player in my eyes. However, just like Kurri was and would have been a great player without Gretzky, he was far better with Gretzky.
I think Espo and Orr are very similar.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
| andyhack |
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 17:27:40
I have no doubt that Bucyk was a very good and solid player, but it is interesting that, inspite of that, he didn't actually become an All-Star until 1968, which was something like his 12th year in the NHL. Basically, three things were different in that last part of his career for him. Expansion, a significantly stronger overall supporting cast in Boston and, most importantly, a young guy from Parry Sound who had some game. I'm not sure if you take the third one away that John Paul Bucyk has the words "All-Star' beside his name in his career summary.
I raise the point in part in response to the comment that those early 70s Bruins were a "Team of All-Stars". Although of course they were in fact All-Stars if you look at the history books, I don't think the expression has nearly the same meaning as it does when applied to the 80s Oilers. Messier and Coffey proved that they were indeed All-Stars (and more) on teams without Gretzky, and Gretzky of course proved the same on teams without them. That early 70s Boston team is a little different.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 16:55:55
I don't have much to add Andy as I pretty much agree with everything you said 100% with the possible exception of Bucyk. (He and I share the same first name. No not Johnny)
John Paul Bucyk was one of the best left wings of all time. Did he benefit from playing with Orr? Of course. Every player on the team did. But he was a very good winger.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
|
|
