| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
 Posted - 03/29/2007 : 20:10:59
|
After thinking about that Habs Dynasty of the '70s and also watching the famous '79 Habs-Bruin game again (reliving a nightmare is more like it), I started to ask myself, okay then, if the Habs were that good, just how good were those Bruin teams of the late 70s then? In '78 they were at 2 games each in the finals before the Habs stepped it up, and everyone knows the story of the '79 semi-final.
My first thought is that the Cup-winning Habs of '76 and '77 were stronger than the Cup-winning Habs of '78 and '79. But, still, to challenge that still very powerhouse-like Habs team the way the Bruins did, it does raise the question, do they rank as one of the best teams to not win the Cup? Or was it just their work ethic, more than their natural talent? That is the reason I became a Boston fan actually. Either way, that team deserves a lot of praise in the history books.
One record those Bruin teams hold to this day by the way is having 11 twenty goal scorers one year. Pretty impressive. Great team to stack up on in hockey pools back then!
Anyway, thought it was kind of hard to do a poll on this so I'm just throwing it out for discussion.
|
Edited by - andyhack on 03/29/2007 20:12:47
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 10:10:07
|
I'll just carry on a conversation with myself here I guess.
Park, Ratelle and Cheevers are Hall of Famers and Middleton really should be in the Hall of Fame in my opinion. There may even be an outside argument for Cashman to be in there too.
For toughness, you had O'Reilly (one of the hardest workers ever in hockey), Secord, Wensink and Jonathon.
And you had a great defensive specialist in Marcotte (maybe second only to Gainey). You had another pretty good one in Miller.
Throw in offensively talented Peter McNab,the talented and also very tough Bobby Schmautz, solid goalie Gilles Gilbert, and probably one or two other guys I am forgetting, and you can almost see how they came within about 90 seconds of knocking off the Habs.......hmmmm......... not really actually. But they were good!!! And entertaining with You Know Who as Coach!
Anyway, back to work. Perhaps I'll get back to myself later. 
|
Edited by - andyhack on 04/01/2007 12:15:48 |
 |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 12:14:44
|
| I'd love to give my thoughts, but I have none. Unless Willus wants to throw something in here, I am not sure too many other people were around to see that team play. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 13:47:32
|
The 70's Bruins were fantastic. The way I see it they should have won more Cups. 3 possibly 4 were within their grasp. While Orr was there they should have had 2 more and after that possibly one maybe two. In 71 Montreal beat them in the first round in 7 games largely because of the incredible play of Dryden in net. They went on to win the cup and Dryden won the Conn Smythe. Lost to a hot goalie. In 74 they are in the finals facing Philly. Philly wins in six games and again it's largely due tp the outstanding play of a goaltender. This time it's Bernie Parent who also wins the Conn Smythe. In 77 they were pretty much dominated by Montreal. In 78 much closer and probably could have gone either way but Montreal took it again.
As for best team not to win the cup, I'd have to think about that a little more. I'd say the earlier Bruins of the 70's were every bit as good as the late 70's. I'll have to come back to this one after I ponder it for awhile. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 20:38:45
|
Yeah, the early 70s Orr teams were better and much more talented.
But in a way the late 70s Cup-less teams are to be admired more. Unlike the earlier teams they were definitely not the favorites in any of their losses. Arguably, they were big underdogs actually. After all, we are touting the team they were up against as being part of the best dynasty ever! And yet they made a very good game of it twice, the second time coming within a "too many men on the ice" penalty and unbelievable shot by one of the all-time greats of beating them.
Everyone always talks about the penalty and I understand that, but if we are correct and that Hab dynasty was the greatest ever, then what the "lunch pail gang" did was pretty amazing. I think your Dynasty poll made me think back on just how amazing actually.
Anyway, Willus3, what do you think about Middleton for the Hall of Fame by the way? I remember back in the early 80s a lot of people used to make the case for him as a Hart trophy candidate - he had a very strong three or four year stretch back then. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2007 : 21:09:10
|
| My initial response was no. Then I thought about it for awhile and I still say no. He's one of those players that is borderline i guess. Super clean player who was equally good offensively and defensively from what I remember. You would be a better judge though being a Bruin fan you would have paid much closer attention than I. |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2007 : 01:12:49
|
| Nifty was my favorite player growing up. Personally, I think that he's Hall material. Perhaps, as Willus said, it's borderline, but I see him just on the otherside of the line. He could do everything, and made players around him better. Fantastic person and ambassador for the game to boot. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
The Bruins of the late 70s 
