Old timers help clue me in

[CALGARY!]

Hey, Im 29 years old, started watching hockey in the early 90s, and really understanding it in the late 90s, but my question is for those of you who watched all threw the 80s, 70s even maybe. My dad tells me that back in the late 70s/early-mid 80s teams would draft and sign guys specifically for one role.

For example he said most teams would have guys who only ever played penalty kill time, and of course the enforcer who only went on the ice for 30 seconds and beat the snot out of someone or get beaten then never step on the ice again unkess the game got out of hand.

A good example I guess was Al McInnis, one of my all time faves, my dad said Calgary drafted him soley based on his slapshot, and in his first one or two seasons his skating was terrible(compared to other NHLers that is) and he literally only came out during the PP to T one of his bombs off, and only later as his skating improved did he become a regular minute defenseman and eventual Conn Smyth winner.

So is this kinda thing true? Would teams have guys on the roster who only played certain times, PP, PK, fighting, whatever, anyone got any examples of this?

[The Magician]

Hey, Im 29 years old, started watching hockey in the early 90s, and really understanding it in the late 90s, but my question is for those of you who watched all threw the 80s, 70s even maybe. My dad tells me that back in the late 70s/early-mid 80s teams would draft and sign guys specifically for one role.

For example he said most teams would have guys who only ever played penalty kill time, and of course the enforcer who only went on the ice for 30 seconds and beat the snot out of someone or get beaten then never step on the ice again unkess the game got out of hand.

A good example I guess was Al McInnis, one of my all time faves, my dad said Calgary drafted him soley based on his slapshot, and in his first one or two seasons his skating was terrible(compared to other NHLers that is) and he literally only came out during the PP to T one of his bombs off, and only later as his skating improved did he become a regular minute defenseman and eventual Conn Smyth winner.

So is this kinda thing true? Would teams have guys on the roster who only played certain times, PP, PK, fighting, whatever, anyone got any examples of this?

Derp. It still happens today with PK and PP specialists.

[CALGARY!]

Yea, but today's PP and pk specialists still play regular minutes. I can't think of anyone whonONLY plays PP or PK

[Time Lord]

At some point in this season, Yannick Weber only played on the 1st PP unit and 4th line. He ended up with less than 5 minutes of play I think.

[terrible.dee]

I'm around the same age as you so I never saw it, but, I did read that 4th liners specifically were usually PK specialists.

Would help the top 3 "playing" lines rest rest for a while.

It makes sense on paper.

But Hockey used to be a lot better, the game has devolved since 95'

Your average game in the 80's and early 90's (NHL's peak period from an entreatment value stand point) Featured all sorts of dramatic events. Break aways, line rushes, D-man solo rushes, 3 on 2's 2 on 1's ect. that barley exist in today's over-coached yawn-fest of a game.

The ref was allowed to call the game according to his own judgment, players didn't really dive or whine to the refs. If there was a problem, the players solved it themselves, immediately.

The NHL did recover quite a bit from it's all time low in the late 90's (2000 Stanley cup final is unwatchable) but it has never really got back what it lost.

[Toews]

I'm around the same age as you so I never saw it, but, I did read that 4th liners specifically were usually PK specialists.

Would help the top 3 "playing" lines rest rest for a while.

It makes sense on paper.

But Hockey used to be a lot better, the game has devolved since 95'

Your average game in the 80's and early 90's (NHL's peak period from an entreatment value stand point) Featured all sorts of dramatic events. Break aways, line rushes, D-man solo rushes, 3 on 2's 2 on 1's ect. that barley exist in today's over-coached yawn-fest of a game.

The ref was allowed to call the game according to his own judgment, players didn't really dive or whine to the refs. If there was a problem, the players solved it themselves, immediately.

The NHL did recover quite a bit from it's all time low in the late 90's (2000 Stanley cup final is unwatchable) but it has never really got back what it lost.

I think a lot of it depends on the style a team plays as well. You aren't going to enjoy the game as much if its New Jersey vs Nashville but I found this year's WCF to be one of the highest quality games I have watched. But most of my time watching the game has been in the dead puck era so I missed all the high scoring of the 80s and early 90s. I personally don't consider more scoring as more entertaining either. But personally my favorite teams to watch are the ones that play effective possession hockey. Other than the Hawks, I really like watching the Sharks, they are an entertaining team to watch.

Also OP, it feels like there are very few true old timers out here. I am sure there might be a few lurking around but from what I have seen the History of Hockey forum on HF has a decent number of people who used to watch during 70s and 80s.

[D-Money]

I'm around the same age as you so I never saw it, but, I did read that 4th liners specifically were usually PK specialists.

Would help the top 3 "playing" lines rest rest for a while.

It makes sense on paper.

But Hockey used to be a lot better, the game has devolved since 95'

Your average game in the 80's and early 90's (NHL's peak period from an entreatment value stand point) Featured all sorts of dramatic events. Break aways, line rushes, D-man solo rushes, 3 on 2's 2 on 1's ect. that barley exist in today's over-coached yawn-fest of a game.

The ref was allowed to call the game according to his own judgment, players didn't really dive or whine to the refs. If there was a problem, the players solved it themselves, immediately.

The NHL did recover quite a bit from it's all time low in the late 90's (2000 Stanley cup final is unwatchable) but it has never really got back what it lost.

To me, as a spectator sport, hockey is better now than it's ever been. Speed, skill, and intelligence are rewarded over goonery. The salary cap eliminated the Detroit-Colorado-Dallas "buy up all the players" dynasties.

Many of those "all sorts of dramatic events" you listed were because opposing players were doing something stupid, and chances fell into your lap.

The anti-instigator-penalty crowd also seems to have selective memory on how well the self-"policing" of the game went. The broad-street bullies would just grab star players and start beating the crap out of them, not only because it was a good trade-off for Philly, but to intimidate into submission. It was completely ridiculous, and needed to be addressed.

[Ghostsof1915]

First off, I didn't get to see many games live in the 70's or 80's. Remember in the 80's BCTV got maybe a dozen or more Canucks games a year, and there was maybe 6 Canucks games on HNIC. So you'd be lucky if you got to see 1/2 a season. There was no internet, and the only stats were via the newspaper, or you bought a copy of the hockey news if you wanted real details.

Coaching wasn't structured/ or had defensive strategies like it is now. I think the guys on the fourth line were a mix of rookies, enforcers, or had a particular skill set that the coach was looking for. That's why the Russian teams in that era seemed so invincible. They were coached with a structure and played as a unit better than the teams in North America.

When I look at games from that era, they players just seemed to just play. Butterfly goalies were unheard of. Weakside lock? What's that? Goaltending equipment was like 1/2 the size of modern pads perhaps less. Goalies didn't even venture out of their nets.

Basically Gretzky and Lemieux and to some extent Orr, changed the game. With players like that, teams needed something to shut these guys down. That's where trap hockey started, when bigger pads and the butterfly style came into the game, it brought the scoring down.

[Bill Sikes]

First off, I didn't get to see many games live in the 70's or 80's. Remember in the 80's BCTV got maybe a dozen or more Canucks games a year, and there was maybe 6 Canucks games on HNIC. So you'd be lucky if you got to see 1/2 a season. There was no internet, and the only stats were via the newspaper, or you bought a copy of the hockey news if you wanted real details.

Coaching wasn't structured/ or had defensive strategies like it is now. I think the guys on the fourth line were a mix of rookies, enforcers, or had a particular skill set that the coach was looking for. That's why the Russian teams in that era seemed so invincible. They were coached with a structure and played as a unit better than the teams in North America.

When I look at games from that era, they players just seemed to just play. Butterfly goalies were unheard of. Weakside lock? What's that? Goaltending equipment was like 1/2 the size of modern pads perhaps less. Goalies didn't even venture out of their nets.

Basically Gretzky and Lemieux and to some extent Orr, changed the game. With players like that, teams needed something to shut these guys down. That's where trap hockey started, when bigger pads and the butterfly style came into the game, it brought the scoring down.

I've watched since the early 70's and you are right for the most part. Orr changed the game as much or more than Gretzky, teams began developing stratagies specificaly to cope with him. Before him defensemen rarely jumped into the rush or moved much inside the opposition blue line. Gretzky arrived at the same time as the first wave of Europeans who brough in criss-crossing, fewer low percentage shots and puck control. In the 70s wingers tended to stay on the wing and rarely moved to the middle, shoot from anywhere and chase the rebound was pretty commonplace. Tony Esposito and to some extent Rogie Vachon used the butterfly, but all of the 70's cups were won by stand up goalies (Dryden, Parent, Cheevers, Johnson). The dominant goalies of the early 80's were also stand ups (Billy SMith, Grant Fuhr), until Roy arrived, followed by Hasek. Brodeur has poplarized a hybrid style incorporating the best of both worlds. The bigger pads were more a result of the synthetic sticks popularized by Brett Hull in the mid 80's, it was shortly after those appeared that the Robo cop defencemen and Michelin Man goalies appeared.

[smithers joe]

back in the day, there didn't seem to be enough talent to adequately fill all the teams...so they fill their rosters with

sometimes less than complete players...ghostsof1915 says it well and it still does on to some extent....when the canucks

picked up snepts, it was they needed a big tough guy...lots of people didn't think he could skate well enough to stick in the nhl...

harold ended up being one of the all time canauk's favorite of the fans....i would love to sit down with jim robson and guys like smyl

quinn and snepts and listen to their stories...even andy bathgate, who played for the canucks in the old pcl....

now teams in our division, want to get bigger and tougher to be able stick with the california teams...

i started out, listening to foster hewitt do play by play of the old 6 team league.on the radio...yes, tim horton and the boys..

[Gaudette Celly]

To me, as a spectator sport, hockey is better now than it's ever been. Speed, skill, and intelligence are rewarded over goonery.

You must have missed the early-mid 80s when the Oilers were running amuk, or the mid-late 70s Habs or early 70s Bruins. Scoring was much higher -- the Oilers were consistently scoring over 400 per season. Last year Boston was tops with 261.

Basically Gretzky and Lemieux and to some extent Orr, changed the game. With players like that, teams needed something to shut these guys down. That's where trap hockey started, when bigger pads and the butterfly style came into the game, it brought the scoring down.

Yes, I think it was New Jersey who really implemented the whole trap system under Lemaire, and that became the new way to play. And as for goalie equipment, watch games from the 70s and 80s, and compare what the goalies had on versus now. They looked like a regular player with pads on, as opposed to Snow who looked like a mechwarrior. Cherry showed the comparison one time and it was ridiculous.

[The Bookie]

Ben Bishop and Darren Pang wearing each other's equipment:

[the grinder]

sure players are still brought in for a spefic purpose a 2 way center , face off specialist, defensive forward , puck moving defensemen stay at home d-men , pk guys pp guys goons and grinders scoring wingers and so on , todays players are just more skilled fitter and than days gone past , imagine a player today having a smoke between periods like guy lafleur used to do . we still have player in certain roles but they are just diverse in their roles now a days

[nuck nit]

Orr was the modern day changer on D.Shore and Harvey were the game changers before him.

MacInnis was a superb hockey player throughout his career.

Lemaire brought the neutral zone trap from Montreal whom used it effectively in the late 60's and 70's.

Montreal got it from the Leafs in the 20's and 30's. It has always been in the game in one form or another.

Players learn from those before them.It has always been the same- 'Monkey See- Monkey Do'.

The game evolves with each generation emulating,learning and improving from the former.

Innovations in style,gear ,technology,health and fitness are constantly being implemented.

[the grinder]

old time hockey style I would compare that to table top hockey forwards would barely get back to their own blue line and dmen would just barely cross the other end of the oppenents blue line except bobby orr , goalies move side to side and stand up barely flopping around , left wing would stay on the left wing same , centers followed the other center

[Bill Sikes]

You must have missed the early-mid 80s when the Oilers were running amuk, or the mid-late 70s Habs or early 70s Bruins. Scoring was much higher -- the Oilers were consistently scoring over 400 per season. Last year Boston was tops with 261.

Yes, I think it was New Jersey who really implemented the whole trap system under Lemaire, and that became the new way to play. And as for goalie equipment, watch games from the 70s and 80s, and compare what the goalies had on versus now. They looked like a regular player with pads on, as opposed to Snow who looked like a mechwarrior. Cherry showed the comparison one time and it was ridiculous.

Wrong, the Canadiens invented it, Lemare played the trap in the 70's (you didn't notice it much then because they had an offense that could shoot the lights out as well) coached in the 80's, please don't think the habs never tapped in front tof Roy.

[terrible.dee]

First off, I didn't get to see many games live in the 70's or 80's. Remember in the 80's BCTV got maybe a dozen or more Canucks games a year, and there was maybe 6 Canucks games on HNIC. So you'd be lucky if you got to see 1/2 a season. There was no internet, and the only stats were via the newspaper, or you bought a copy of the hockey news if you wanted real details.

Coaching wasn't structured/ or had defensive strategies like it is now. I think the guys on the fourth line were a mix of rookies, enforcers, or had a particular skill set that the coach was looking for. That's why the Russian teams in that era seemed so invincible. They were coached with a structure and played as a unit better than the teams in North America.

When I look at games from that era, they players just seemed to just play. Butterfly goalies were unheard of. Weakside lock? What's that? Goaltending equipment was like 1/2 the size of modern pads perhaps less. Goalies didn't even venture out of their nets.

Basically Gretzky and Lemieux and to some extent Orr, changed the game. With players like that, teams needed something to shut these guys down. That's where trap hockey started, when bigger pads and the butterfly style came into the game, it brought the scoring down.

Exactly, very good summary of what happened.

Only thing I would ad is that, it wasn't all about scoring numbers, the game lacks the flow it once had, which to me is where most of the entertainment value comes from. I've seen some incredibly entertaining 2-1 games, but those games had incredible flow to them.

[terrible.dee]

Wrong, the Canadiens invented it, Lemare played the trap in the 70's (you didn't notice it much then because they had an offense that could shoot the lights out as well) coached in the 80's, please don't think the habs never tapped in front tof Roy.

Wasn't around then, but yes, I heard that the Habs used it back then.

Also heard they used it in 86' and a variation of it in 93' to win the cup.

Wasn't around for the 86' cup win (Do I have that year right?) but I was old enough to watch in 93', I recall ALL the credit going to Patrick Roy. There was no mention of defensive systems at all. Which makes sense, as the NHL wants to make stars of the players not the coaches. Star players = Revenue

It wasn't until 95' that they started talking about it. I guess they had to give the world some explanation as to why hockey had morphed into Red Rover on ice.

[terrible.dee]

To me, as a spectator sport, hockey is better now than it's ever been. Speed, skill, and intelligence are rewarded over goonery. The salary cap eliminated the Detroit-Colorado-Dallas "buy up all the players" dynasties.

Many of those "all sorts of dramatic events" you listed were because opposing players were doing something stupid, and chances fell into your lap.

The anti-instigator-penalty crowd also seems to have selective memory on how well the self-"policing" of the game went. The broad-street bullies would just grab star players and start beating the crap out of them, not only because it was a good trade-off for Philly, but to intimidate into submission. It was completely ridiculous, and needed to be addressed.

Ghostsof1915's post about the change i'm referring to is quite good, so I won't repeat what he said, just go have a look at it.

But it was not all about fighting, instigator ect. that certainly did contribute to creating open ice, but it's not the whole story. And yes, I do agree that it needed to be addressed.

I personally believe it was addressed incorrectly and that the types of fighting they wanted out of the game could have been removed without affecting the entertainment value of the game.

They should have kept fighting for it's original intended purpose, policing players who were reckless and likely to cause injury. That type of fighting should have no penalty attached to it. The refs should use replay to establish the motive for a fight and if the instigated fight meets the proper criteria: No penalty.

Instead they turned fighting into a side show, where it serves no purpose at all. Now there is diving, whining and those same reckless players are still going strong.

If the NHL had gone down this road Matt Cooke would have never happened, he would have been a a regular third line checker and stayed out of the physical part of the game all together. Brad Marchand would still be a decent player but he would not be able to do the things he does. His game would be completely different.

Anyway, I digress..

As far as finding today's game more entertaining, assuming you've watched some of the 80's early 90's stuff I'm referring to, you are totally entitled to your own opinion.

[oldnews]

Hey, Im 29 years old, started watching hockey in the early 90s, and really understanding it in the late 90s, but my question is for those of you who watched all threw the 80s, 70s even maybe. My dad tells me that back in the late 70s/early-mid 80s teams would draft and sign guys specifically for one role.

For example he said most teams would have guys who only ever played penalty kill time, and of course the enforcer who only went on the ice for 30 seconds and beat the snot out of someone or get beaten then never step on the ice again unkess the game got out of hand.

A good example I guess was Al McInnis, one of my all time faves, my dad said Calgary drafted him soley based on his slapshot, and in his first one or two seasons his skating was terrible(compared to other NHLers that is) and he literally only came out during the PP to T one of his bombs off, and only later as his skating improved did he become a regular minute defenseman and eventual Conn Smyth winner.

So is this kinda thing true? Would teams have guys on the roster who only played certain times, PP, PK, fighting, whatever, anyone got any examples of this?

I think that's a bit of an overstatement in general.

I watched hockey in the 70s and 80s.

If you look at the dynasties for example, there aren't really many examples of those types of one dimensional players. It was also obviously easier to maintain dominance because of a number of factors - no salary cap, not really difficult for teams to keep/afford their players, players tended to stay with franchises longer...

But if you look at the New York Islanders for example, they had role players as teams today do, but a whole lot of talent up and down the lineup. Trottier and Potvin, two of the greatest two way players of al time imo. Bossy, Tonelli, Nystrom, Gillies, Bourne...Those were teams with 7,8,9 guys who could score 20 goals, and another handful in the 15 range. "Penalty killers" who could score 15 or 20 goals...No real "enforcer" on their roster.

Likewise where teams like the Oilers were concerned. Even if you take the stereotypical Oiler enforcer, Dave Semenko - he scored 10 or more goals 4 times in his career. Get beyond the Gretzky, Coffee, Kurri, Messier, Anderson and you still have 'role' players, guys like Craig McTavish, who'd kill penalties but would score 20 goals at the same time. Esa Tikkanen was the stereotype of a shutdown superpest, and yet he was a regular 30 goal scorer.

So, I think the idea that players were one dimensional may be a bit overstated. Certainly there were enforcers who made the NHL pretty much primarily to perform a policing role, but even those guys were better and more skilled than the stereotype may suggest. They for the most part had to become fairly decent skaters, and they also didn't simply play 2 minutes a game. A guy like Dave Semenko didn't score 10 goals playing 2 minutes a night, and 'penalty killers' didn't score 20 goals while killing penalties. There were a lot of talented athletes who could play both sides of the puck - the game may have been different and more open, but the players weren't really that one dimensional.

The same holds true of even the "Broad Street Bullies". Yeah, they were vicious, but again, the Flyers had teams with 7 or 8 guys who'd score 20+ goals, and a few of them would mess you up after the whistles. And again, even the biggest stereotype of a goon - Dave Schultz - had a 20 goal season and 4 seasons over 10 goals. He was also 'only' 190 lbs, which didn't stop him from amassing 472 penalty minutes in one season! Still, he averaged about 30 points through those years, so even a "goon" could play the game and wasn't necessarily one-dimensional.