| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
 Posted - 10/02/2007 : 17:12:33
|
Now that people are coming back to the site as hockey season begins, I thought it would be a good time to have a discussion on this. I've been sitting on it for awhile. The "what if" thread had some very interesting scenarios brought up. To me the single biggest "what if" in hockey though is Bobby Orr.
So my question is, how would the history of hockey look now had Orr not been forced to retire essentially at 27 years of age. Let's say for arguments sake that he was able to play an average of 75 games a season with his knees at the healthiest point in his career until 1985. A reasonable career length I think.
Here's an example of wht I mean.
I think the most obvious change would be the Norris Winners list. Guys like Potvin and Robinson would join the likes of Brad Park as great defensemen who never won the Norris. How many Norris's would Orr have won?
I think there are myriad of things that would be different.
What else do you see being different?
Edit - Sorry I forgot to say let's also assume that he stayed with Boston and did no go to Chicago.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper"
|
Edited by - willus3 on 10/02/2007 18:35:01
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2007 : 18:08:19
|
I see Boston winning more Cups!! Mostly the one's the Islanders won, not the one's the Oilers won. 
Like Willus, I think that if Orr would have played well into his late 30's, it would have been very much like Lidstrom's Norris dominance in the past 5 years. And when you consider that most defensemen really don't come into their own until their late 20's or early 30's, it's not hard to think that RGO potentially missed his best seasons. That is a very scary thought! A 150+ point defenseman?? It's not that far off a thought if Bobby played in the 80's.
However, I think one bad thing that would have come out of that would have been the dead puck era starting earlier and lasting longer. Not sure if other agree, but I would say that most of the 'trap" styles were created and coached to stop the high flying teams such as the 80's Oilers and late 80's early 90's Penguins. When they were successful, they stuck around. If you think if Gretzky was on the West coast and Orr on the East Coast, the creation of a way to stop those teams would have been more focused across the league.
I wonder if Bourque would have been as highly regarded if he played with Orr for any length of time??? That's another interesting thing to look at.
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997. |
 |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2007 : 12:18:31
|
Here's another question in history.
1998 Olympic Games. Shoot out against the Czechs. Here's the list of shooters for Canada
Fleury
Bourque
Niewendyk
Lindros
Shannahan
Here's the other players who were sitting on that bench.
Rod Brind'Amour
Shayne Corson
Wayne Gretzky
Trevor Linden
Keith Primeau
Joe Sakic
Steve Yzerman
Rob Zamuner
Rob Blake
Eric Desjardins
Adam Foote
Al MacInnis
Chris Pronger
Scott Stevens
With all due respect to Ray Bourque, with Gretzky and Yzerman sitting on the bench, how could Crawford do that?? I know Gretz wasn't great on the break away, but either Gretzky or Yzerman, guys who bleed Red Maple Leaves, would have found a way to score. Even Sakic!!
Agree?
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2007 : 14:24:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Here's another question in history.
1998 Olympic Games. Shoot out against the Czechs. Here's the list of shooters for Canada
Fleury
Bourque
Niewendyk
Lindros
Shannahan
Here's the other players who were sitting on that bench.
Rod Brind'Amour
Shayne Corson
Wayne Gretzky
Trevor Linden
Keith Primeau
Joe Sakic
Steve Yzerman
Rob Zamuner
Rob Blake
Eric Desjardins
Adam Foote
Al MacInnis
Chris Pronger
Scott Stevens
With all due respect to Ray Bourque, with Gretzky and Yzerman sitting on the bench, how could Crawford do that?? I know Gretz wasn't great on the break away, but either Gretzky or Yzerman, guys who bleed Red Maple Leaves, would have found a way to score. Even Sakic!!
Agree?
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997.
I never understood why he chose those shooters either. I remember it was quite controversial at the time as well.
Gretzky was known to be just average on breakaways but I'd still choose him in a heartbeat over Bourque in that situation.
Sakic has such a great wrist shot with an incredibly quick release it's almost a given he will score on a breakaway.
I would bet money Sakic, Yzerman and Gretzky all would have scored in that situation given the opportunity.
I never thought much of Lindros on breakaways.
I think Shanahan and Niewendyk were good choices.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
Edited by - willus3 on 10/03/2007 14:25:51 |
|
|
|
spade632
Rookie
Canada
247 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2007 : 14:29:56
|
I agree, I'll never be able to understand how Crawford made the decisions he did.
As far as what I would pick, I've gotta agree with Willus.
Sakic
Shanahan
Niewendyk
Gretzky
Yzerman
(in that order) |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2007 : 14:33:48
|
Another possible change in History with Orr would be that Canada might not have been embarrassed in the 81 Canada Cup.
We got hammered 8-1 by USSR despite having 5 of the top six scorers in the tournament. I think Orr was good enough to change the dynamic of that Canadian team and turn it into a winner.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
Edited by - willus3 on 10/03/2007 14:48:56 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2007 : 14:45:36
|
Is it inconceivable that Orr would have won 15 Norris trophies? If you look at how he performed and extrapolate and project what he could have done and compare it to the guys who did win in the years after Bobby i think it's entirely possible. Potvin and Robinson were never considered as good as Orr and the other guys who won it in that time period weren't even remotely close.
That would have without a doubt been the most dominating career ever.
Not to mention the probability that he would win at least a few more Harts and Lester Pearson awards. Maybe some Conn Smythes too after a few of the additional Cup wins.
These projections aren't unreasonable in the least and I think after such a career there would not be the argument of who the greatest ever was like there is today. There would be no doubt.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2007 : 14:48:11
|
Beans, it's an interesting point you raise regarding the trap and other systems possibly coming in earlier. Though I'm not sure it would have. Lemaire is largely responsible for bringing back that system that he played uder in Montreal. So I'm not sure it would have happened any sooner. But definitely possible.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2007 : 15:57:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Is it inconceivable that Orr would have won 15 Norris trophies? If you look at how he performed and extrapolate and project what he could have done and compare it to the guys who did win in the years after Bobby i think it's entirely possible. Potvin and Robinson were never considered as good as Orr and the other guys who won it in that time period weren't even remotely close.
I think the Norris question is a lot easier than the Cup question. Assuming he was even as healthy as in his last couple of years (far from totally healthy as we know), it's quite conceivable that the Norris would have been his into the '80s. A total of 15 is not at all crazy to imagine, but even if you want to throw in a couple for Potvin and Robinson, he still likely would have had 11 or 12.
The Cup question is much trickier. If you consider that probably better Boston teams couldn't beat probably weaker opposition in the early 70s (at least in the years '71 and '73), it's hard to imagine that Orr would have propelled the less talented lunchpail Bruins to the Cup. I loved those late '70s Bruins (partially because they were less talented and maxed the talent they had through hard work and beantown style haaaat ), but let's face it, they were in tough against the Hab Dynasty. Park and Orr together would have made a huge difference but I think , ultimately, the Habs likely would have won every year, except maybe '79. After that, you have to consider that the Bs lost a slight step for a couple of years in the early 80s even with the arrival of Bourque. In '83 though they played a tough six game semifinal against the Isles in the last year of the Isle's dynasty. Obviously, having Orr then would have been verrrry nice. Bourque, Park, Orr - now that would have been cool. But it would have been pre-prime Bourque and post prime Park/Orr so, as cool as it would have been, I'm actually not sure it would have been as formidable as the Robinson-Savard-Lapointe combo the Habs had, particularly if we're focussing on the '76 and '77 version of them.
So overall my guess would be about 12 or so Norris trophies for Orr and maybe 2 Cups for Boston.
|
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2007 : 17:27:03
|
Actually, and this may surprise some, but I actually think the Bruins may have had a better chance at some cups in the early '90s if you think about the big Neely "What if". For that team though, I would expand the "What if" to cover a few other hard luck things that happened.
The "what ifS" of the early 90s Bruins are:
1) What if the Neely-Ulf thing hadn't occured?
2) What if highly touted 1st round pick and huge Gord Kluzak wouldn't have had one injury after the other?
3) What if the highly touted first round pick Norman Leveille hadn't suffered his cerebral hemmorhage?
4) What if the Briuins would have been able to keep Kevin Stevens that year where they thought they had him until the Pens matched their offer (he was still quite good back then too)?
I know it's A LOT of "What Ifs" but, unfortunately, it's all Bruin fans seem to have left these days
|
Edited by - andyhack on 10/03/2007 17:29:27 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2007 : 08:35:57
|
Well, the fact he had 8 before he retired, I think he could have won at least 5 more if healthy.
That's kinda scary to think about isn't it.
AndyHack, or should I just call you MR. Bruin. Yes, I think the late 80's/early 90's could have been a different time with all the the things you said. But that raises another interesting point. If Boston wins the Cup in the years Pittsburgh did, is Mario as highly regarded as he is today??
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2007 : 12:39:15
|
Mario probably wouldn't have been as highly regarded without any Cups to his records. If, however, he would have played as well as he did but somehow Boston would have pulled off those series anyway (as they seemed to be in a position to do in '91 before the Ulf incident anyway), then I wouldn't let it affect my opinion on him. We've discussed this before Beans. In my opinion, the Cup thing is over-rated by the public and the media in judging a player's career. Brad Park is Exhibit A to both angles of the argument - DOES a Cup reflect on the way a player is judged historically - YES. SHOULD a Cup reflect on the way a player is judged - NO, probably not too much given that it's a team sport and luck and timing and quality of opposition, etc play such a part in whether you end up with your name on the Cup.
Just going back to the Bruins though (I tend to do that), I suppose another "What if" is "What if Milbury hadn't have gone the goon route in the game after the Neely thing?". I like Milbury for some reason but I have always looked at that strategy as a huge error on his part. The Bruins were in a very good position still in that series, and though a healthy Cam was a huge reason for that, the team as a whole was playing quite well. To totally alter everything and put out a bunch of goons and clearly get away from your game just to make a statement, I don't know, I question Mike's handling of that big time.
Another smaller "What if" for the Bs is that triple overtime Game 1 of the '90 final against the Oilers. I wonder if the Bruins could have won anyway, but I think that of all the Game 1s in the history of hockey, that one might have been one of the biggest in terms of its impact on the overall outcome to the series. Unlike '88, the Bs had a chance that year. Fffing Peter Klima!  |
Edited by - andyhack on 10/05/2007 12:40:27 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2007 : 13:36:38
|
Ah, Andyhack, don't be mad at Petr.
In regards to the Cup thing, I agree that one Cup shouldn't make a players legacy any different. However, a couple or more like in Mario's and Wayne's case. Or a few with different teams as in Messier's case do further solidify their legacy.
If you are under the age of 15, please do some research before you make a post about anything pre-1997. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
How would the history of Hockey look now... 
