Old timers help clue me in

[Gaudette Celly]

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.

Didn't say they invented it but that they were the ones who really got it notoriety (not necessarily positive) and from there other teams implementing it, which dampened the more wide-open offenses of that time.

[JeremyCuddles]

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.

The broad street bullies couldn't exist in todays NHL purely because it's too fast for the goon squads to exist.

[The Magician]

The broad street bullies couldn't exist in todays NHL purely because it's too fast for the goon squads to exist.

The Bruins tho

[Bill Sikes]

Didn't say they invented it but that they were the ones who really got it notoriety (not necessarily positive) and from there other teams implementing it, which dampened the more wide-open offenses of that time.

The Devils implemented it around the same time the NHL's media presence began to take off making it much more visible to more fans as well as the media finally coming up with a name for it. The 80's Habs "collapsed around the net". Its been around for a long time, usually rears its ugly head when one of two things occurs.

1) a Wave of expansion, weaker teams are almost forced to use it to be competative with extablushed teams, in the 70s there was a massive expansion combined with the rise of the WHA, not enough talented players to go around and teams needed to try to stay competative with the Bruins, Hawks and Habs. The 90s began another wave of expansion.

2) A team has success with powerful offense, everyone develops a sustem to try to counter that team. 70's Habs and Flyers to counter the Bruins, 80's Flames and Habs to counter the Oilers and Nordiques (the Islanders could use it pretty well when needed like the 83 Finals but didn't rely on it exclusively), 90s Devils to contain the Flyers Legion of Doom and to some degree the Stars and Av's to handle the Red Wings.

[Bill Sikes]

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?

There were players who were used primarily for certain roles, the Islanders traded for Butch Goring in 1980 primarily to be a penalty killer, but he turned out to be far more useful than just a penalty killing specialits, Craig McTavish's role with the Oilers was mainly to kill penalties and take faceoffs in the Oiler end (face offs were one thing Gretzky wasn't great at). These role players didn't just sit on the bench until their particular specialty came up, but they usually had limited ice time otherwise. Teams usually had two scoring lines and a checking line and a few utility players or role players that ocasionaly played on the third or made up a fouth line that got a few shifts, usually after a power play when the top two lines were exhuasted.

[JeremyCuddles]

The Bruins tho

Lol. The jokes.

[THERETOOL]

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

that is a crazy photo .. my god , it won't be long until some owner puts a sumo wrestler in net

[aqua59]

I think the biggest difference is the knowledge of training. Players smoked between periods.

Guy Lafluer was a huge smoker. Players showed up to training camp to get into shape not in shape.

I went to many early Vancouver games , they were great. When Montreal came to town even as a kid you saw the difference. This was a team well built with all the aspects of a good team. Watching Vancouver you could see they needed something.

Money.

[terrible.dee]

The Devils implemented it around the same time the NHL's media presence began to take off making it much more visible to more fans as well as the media finally coming up with a name for it.

Yes, The Devil's 95' win coincided with the NHL's push onto the fox network.

Just as Betteman was getting ready for the big push, the on ice product went down the toilet, almost over night.

I don't hate Bettman, but the one unforgivable mistake he made, was not fixing that issue immediately.

By the time potential fans were exposed to the game on FOX, it was largely unwatchable. I just don't think Bettman knew enough about Hockey at the time to understand what had happened.

[Mustapha]

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.

The Habs won 10 games that playoff year in OT. Three of those games were in the Stanley Cup Finals.

Roy was sensational that year. No doubt in my mind that the Kings would have won the Cup that year if it weren't for Roy.

It's a good thing too. If he wasn't there, we would have had to spend the next 20+ years listening to Kelly Hrudey reminisce about his glorious championship.

Roy really earned his Conn Smythe that year. He might have seemed a bit arrogant at times, but he was a fantastic goaltender.

[Bill Sikes]

The Habs won 10 games that playoff year in OT. Three of those games were in the Stanley Cup Finals.

Roy was sensational that year. No doubt in my mind that the Kings would have won the Cup that year if it weren't for Roy.

It's a good thing too. If he wasn't there, we would have had to spend the next 20+ years listening to Kelly Hrudey reminisce about his glorious championship.

Roy really earned his Conn Smythe that year. He might have seemed a bit arrogant at times, but he was a fantastic goaltender.

Don't underestimate Kerry Frasers contribution, allowng multiple too many men infraction to go un-noticed in game 3 vs the Islanders (they had at least 8 on the ice when the ot goal was scored), his unwillingness to toss Gretzky for the high stick on Gilmour (Toronto was 2-0 vs Montreal that year) and his "not seeing" a 6'3 230 lb John LeClair with both feet in the crease on the tying goal vs LA in game 2 (the rule at the time was no goal and a Montreal Penalty)

[etsen3]

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.

Don't know if "devolved" is the right word. All those breakaways and rushes were because people made stupid mistakes. If less of that is happening, it means teams are evolving and getting better and smarter. A hockey team nowadays would kill a team from the 80's.

Now if you're talking pure entertainment value, hockey back then would have been better. But it would have been interesting in the same way the wild west was "interesting".

[bigbadcanucks]

The broad street bullies couldn't exist in todays NHL purely because it's too fast for the goon squads to exist.

Would disagree with this statement. The Philly team of the mid 70s was loaded with talented players -- Bobby Clarke, Rick MacLeish, Reggie Leach, Bill Barber, Orest Kindrachuk, Tom Bladon, Jimmy Watson, Bernie Parent to name some. Their achilles heal would have been penalties, and it's not likely they would have been able to intimidate opposing teams like they did way back when.

There is not a single team that has ever won the Stanley Cup without having a roster that contained a mix of talent and toughness. The only team that I can think of that won the cup without playing an overtly physically aggressive game in the past 40 years are the Blackhawks of 2012-2013.

[bigbadcanucks]

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 would say that certain players were known to be of a certain type of style. For example, Doug Jarvis was reknowned for his face off and PK abilities, but he took a regular shift as a third liner for the Habs...I remember Don Marcotte was used by Cherry to shadow Guy Lafleur in the playoffs, but Marcotte was a regular 20 goal scorer. Guys like Terry O'Reily, Al Secord, Clarke Gillies were not to be messed with because they would break faces, but they were decent offensive players. Even a guy like Larry Robinson who was an elite d-man, was arguably one of the best fighters of all time (he laid a beating on Dave Schutz when Schultz was the baddest man in the NHL).

Goons were truly goons way back when, but some were able to pop in a few goals (e.g., Schultz, Williams, Semenko, Probert, Odjick were able to pop a few, though Semenko was quick to say that a fire hydrant could score 20 goals playing beside Gretzky). I suppose this is really no different than a goon like Lucic scoring 15 to 25 goals a season today.

Superstar offensive players didn't pay much attention to defence...seldom did you see Gretzky or Lemieux or Brett Hull back check with any determination, though these guys were great at take-aways in the neutral and offensive zones.

Goaltending and defensive schemes and systems are significantly better today...IMO, the players are better today in that they are better conditioned and coached, but the game itself today is over-coached. In the old days, players used the training camp to get in shape...now players use training to compete for jobs and fine tune what they worked on during the off-season. It would be interesting to see an NHL with certain defensive schemes (i.e., the trap) deemed illegal like in basketball, though I have no idea how one would officiate this.

Certain players in days of yore did certain things, and focused on those certain things they did well...but those were more than the exception than the rule. All-around/multi-faceted players have always been valued. So, as much as hockey has evolved, a lot remains the same. When I watch some vintage games, I think to myself that the pace is slower and the ability for elite players to dominate was much greater than it is today.

[bigbadcanucks]

Don't underestimate Kerry Frasers contribution, allowng multiple too many men infraction to go un-noticed in game 3 vs the Islanders (they had at least 8 on the ice when the ot goal was scored), his unwillingness to toss Gretzky for the high stick on Gilmour (Toronto was 2-0 vs Montreal that year) and his "not seeing" a 6'3 230 lb John LeClair with both feet in the crease on the tying goal vs LA in game 2 (the rule at the time was no goal and a Montreal Penalty)

And lets not forget the chitzy illegal stick call against Marty McSorley that allowed for tying goal you're referring to in the final minute to take the game into OT in Game 2 that the Habs eventually won. Have always hated the illegal curve rule and hated guys that called it.

[Bill Sikes]

And lets not forget the chitzy illegal stick call against Marty McSorley that allowed for tying goal you're referring to in the final minute to take the game into OT in Game 2 that the Habs eventually won. Have always hated the illegal curve rule and hated guys that called it.

I heard the habs did another illegal move on that one, taking LA sticks to their dressing room and measuring them, how else would they single out McSorley rather than say Luc Robitaiile for a stick mesurement?

[bigbadcanucks]

I heard the habs did another illegal move on that one, taking LA sticks to their dressing room and measuring them, how else would they single out McSorley rather than say Luc Robitaiile for a stick mesurement?

First I heard of that, but Demers was known to be a sneaky fellow, so I suppose anything is possible. From what I recall, the blade on McSorley's hockey stick was overtly exceeding the curve limit...but those Habs of yore were slippery buggers, so where there is smoke, I'm sure there is some fire, Wolfman.

Onus is on the player to keep it within the rules, but still contend that this was and is a stupid rule. And I hated the Habs for playing this card (though they had every right to do so).

[Bill Sikes]

First I heard of that, but Demers was known to be a sneaky fellow, so I suppose anything is possible. From what I recall, the blade on McSorley's hockey stick was overtly exceeding the curve limit...but those Habs of yore were slippery buggers, so where there is smoke, I'm sure there is some fire, Wolfman.

Onus is on the player to keep it within the rules, but still contend that this was and is a stupid rule. And I hated the Habs for playing this card (though they had every right to do so).

It was originally created as a safety rule, when Bobby Hull and Stan Makita first started curving their blades they put huge boomerang hooks on them, the pucks started fluttering and dipping like knuckleballs and goalies (who didn't wear masks at the time) had trouble following it. Imagine not wearing a mask and Bobby Hull fires a 100 MPH+ knucklball that you have no clue where its going.

[bigbadcanucks]

It was originally created as a safety rule, when Bobby Hull and Stan Makita first started curving their blades they put huge boomerang hooks on them, the pucks started fluttering and dipping like knuckleballs and goalies (who didn't wear masks at the time) had trouble following it. Imagine not wearing a mask and Bobby Hull fires a 100 MPH+ knucklball that you have no clue where its going.

Hull nailed Al Smith (I believe) in the face in the old WHA days...Smith was wearing one of those flimsy Tony Esposito masks and he was split open like a banana at Dairy Queen.

Was aware of the origin of the rule...so shouldn't have said "was"...with goalie equipment the way it is now, goalies are safe, though shot blockers may be in danger...but some rules have outlived their usefulness. I would say this is one of them.

[Ghostsof1915]

It was originally created as a safety rule, when Bobby Hull and Stan Makita first started curving their blades they put huge boomerang hooks on them, the pucks started fluttering and dipping like knuckleballs and goalies (who didn't wear masks at the time) had trouble following it. Imagine not wearing a mask and Bobby Hull fires a 100 MPH+ knucklball that you have no clue where its going.

That's why I loved Gary Cheever's mask. He put a stitch mark on every part of the mask every time he had a heavy shot to the face.

That's why you look at his mask and it's just covered in stitch marks on it. A testament to the days when goalies didn't wear masks. Which also explained why when I ever played street hockey with my Dad, he refused to wear a mask! Talk about old school stand up goalie! So we always had to keep the ball low. Guess you can never take out a PNE Forum Rink Rat.