1984 SCF Game One: Oilers vs Islanders

DisgruntledGoat*

Registered User
Dec 26, 2010
4,301
27
I just rewatched this game and a few thoughts popped up that I thought I'd post here.

* 'Prime' Bob Cole was a joy to listen to. I had forgotten how good he was back in the day.

* Trottier was assigned to check Gretzky, and I was suprised with how he went about doing it. Everyone remembers Trottier as a gritty, physical guy and you'd have expected him to try and use that physical advantage against 99. Revisiting this series, what I realized is that he really didn't attempt that at all. To use a modern comparison, Trottier played very much like Datsyuk; stealing pucks, breaking up passes, and then being very quick to move it up ice and away from the Islanders zone. He was very effective and impressive in this.

* The Oilers used Gretzky and Messier as their main forward PK'ers. Very interesting choice, but as Messier was strong defensively and Gretzky, even shorthanded, was always a threat, it makes sense. Just interesting because you rarely see teams do this anymore, and the Oilers certainly had options as that team had a lot of role-players filling out the bottom six.

* Denis Potvin is still a joy to watch. On the Islanders first powerplay, he skated the puck from his goal-line to center ice then snapped a perfect, hard pass to the other side of the boards to enable Bossy to gain the zone. For all the talk about the diluted and high-scoring 80s. . . that is a break-out play that works in any era.

* On the subject of Potvin; he didn't play overly physically in this game, but such a self-assured defender, always in the right position. He reminded, actually, of Lidstrom but a bigger, more powerful skater. Did a puck ever get by Potvin at the point on the powerplay?

* Sather essentially just used his top lines on the powerplay. Kurri-Gretzky-Semenko for the majority, and then Anderson-Messier-Lindstrom. Good to note as too often Messier's production gets attributed to 99, and that's simply false.

* I forgot how fast Linseman was. He's remembered as, 'the rat' (deservedly) but the guy could flat out fly.

* Did it ever come out if Bossy was injured in this series? I was struck by how often he passed when in good scoring position. Weird.

* Messier was such a force. Didn't get a point, but Sather started both the first and second periods with Messier's line, and they really set the tone; crashing the net, hitting, aggressively chasing down loose pucks.

* Except one sequence in the second period where Trottier and Tonelli completely owned the Messier line. Trottier beat Messier clean on two Oiler-zone faceoffs, and then Tonelli walked him in the corner to get the puck out to Trottier for probably the Islanders' best scoring chance of the game. Two wily old vets doing what they did best.

* The Oilers were the more physical of the two teams. Dave Hunter, in particular, was just a nasty piece of work all game. Got into several stick-jousting matches, and threw some big hits. Of course, the Islanders didn't back down, and bodies and sticks were all over the ice all night. HFBoards would implode if hockey were played like this now.

* The Hunter-Hughes-McLelland line, in general, was a force all game long, and the Islanders really didn't seem to have an answer.

* No icing until about the middle of the second period. Very little crease-crashing or cycle-play. Just a lot of skating, chances off the rush, and hard physical play. A better brand of hockey all around, honestly.

* Tomas Jonsson was probably the second-best D on the ice, after Potvin.

* Great Coffey play in the third: Brent Sutter had a bit of room in the Oilers zone and looked to go wide to get a shot on net. Coffey took the puck from him and skated it all the way into the Islanders zone for a scoring chance. Coffey has never gotten enough credit for this; being able to skate a puck end-to-end at light speed IS a solid defensive play.

* At the end of the third, down 1-0, Arbour replaced Smith with Melanson to get a 30-second time-out while Melanson 'warmed up'. Totally forgot about this ridiculous rule.

* Edmonton used Messier, Kurri and Gretz almost exclusively in the last minute of the game to defend the lead. Again, interesting how often Sather would throw his top players out in all situations.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,148
This was an example of how the Oilers were able to win the tight games as well as the pond hockey shootouts. I think this was their turning point. Game 2 was a shellacking by the Isles but then all three games in Edmonton were cakewalks by the Oilers. So yeah, they learned how to beat teams in other ways than just outscoring them.

I think with the Islanders and their stars' lack of production in the 1984 playoffs comes down to burnout. You've got to lose at some time. The Isles nearly lost to the Rangers in that white knuckle series and then had a tough series against the Canadiens in the semis. They were burned out. That's a lot of hockey they played over the previous 5 years and someone is eventually going to come along and knock your socks off. So if you see a drop in Bossy and Trottier's stats then that's why.
 

LeBlondeDemon10

Registered User
Jul 10, 2010
3,729
379
Canada
Yes, Thomas Jonsson - very underrated and a short career. I recall watching that series and I have vivid memories of the Isles looking very tired and old. Maybe the most amazing thing about that series was the game 2 beat down by the Isles. But that drained the tank. Edmonton was quick, tough, determined and hungry as hell. Personally, I liked the way the Isles lost. The dynasty was finally beaten. They went down as champions. Same with the Flyers in 76. The torch was passed. I never liked the way the 70's Canadiens dynasty ended. They lost too many parts and injuries did them in in the 80 playoffs.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Personally, I liked the way the Isles lost. The dynasty was finally beaten. They went down as champions.

So true.

At the conclusion of Game One of the Cup Finals the previous spring (the greatest hockey game this observer has ever watched), one concluded that there was no way NYI would lose that series. For they had faced off against arguably the most dynamic offensive team ever - on Edmonton's ice - and beat the Oilers in a classic display of patience and poise (and-out-of-this-world goaltending by Billy Smith). They forced Edmonton to play a different game...and the Oilers could not. Final score NYI 2, Oilers 0, in what was essentially a 1-0 game for 59 minutes. (Open net goal.) The Oilers just were not quite ready to face and overcome adversity. The Isles took them them out of their comfort zone, and they couldn't adjust, at least not enough to win.

Fast forward one year to Game One of the '84 SCF, and just the reverse happened. The Oilers, now a year older (though still ridiculously young) and smarter defeated NYI in an uber-tight game that was the antithesis of a high-powered, high octane, high scoring affair. This time, they played NYI's game - on NYI's ice - and beat them at it. It was at that moment that some of us had a strong suspicion that change was in the air.

As for your sage observation about NYI going down as champions: dying seconds of Game Five (and the series) in Edmonton, crowd going nuts. Play headed down to the Oilers end. Denis Potvin, skating behind the play near center ice, suddenly takes one hand off his stick and raises it for just a moment over his head. When asked after the game what that was about, he says it was his way of saluting the Oilers and their fans, and acknowledging the passing of the torch.

Class.
 

blamebettman*

Guest
This was an example of how the Oilers were able to win the tight games as well as the pond hockey shootouts. I think this was their turning point. Game 2 was a shellacking by the Isles but then all three games in Edmonton were cakewalks by the Oilers. So yeah, they learned how to beat teams in other ways than just outscoring them.

I think with the Islanders and their stars' lack of production in the 1984 playoffs comes down to burnout. You've got to lose at some time. The Isles nearly lost to the Rangers in that white knuckle series and then had a tough series against the Canadiens in the semis. They were burned out. That's a lot of hockey they played over the previous 5 years and someone is eventually going to come along and knock your socks off. So if you see a drop in Bossy and Trottier's stats then that's why.

The game 5 against the Rangers in 1984 was epic...and the Rangers tying goal with 30 seconds to go was a blatant high stick that somehow wasn't called. Imagine NYR scored in OT, the end of the Isles dynasty because of a bogus non call on a tying goal. That would've been a huge scandal
 

redbull

Boss
Mar 24, 2008
12,593
654
those two series, the '83 and '84 playoffs were my two favourite of all time. Only the 87 Canada Cup was as enjoyable.

Very true how Gretzky was used in all situations. He often gets painted as a one-dimensional all-offense floater but he competed as hard as anyone and never played a lazy shift, he was as reliable as anyone on the ice.

I was shocked Gretzky and the Oilers were contained in '83. The Oilers were 11-1, outscoring opponents 74-33.

The Islanders swept them 4-0, outscoring them 17-6. Gretzky was held to 4 assists in the sweep after scoring going 12-22-34 in the first 12 playoff games.

The '84 Oilers were a far more confident group, much more poised as a team. The stats were similar, but the team was different.

To the OP, Trottier/Potvin were awesome at winning puck battles by ust erasing players along the wall, separating player and puck, and making an offensive play. Among the best ever. No YouTube highlights would have been posted, just like there weren't/aren't many Lidstrom YouTube clips compared to, say, Nik Zherdev or Linus Omark.

Didn't think it was possible to stop that Oilers team - that's where I still think that Isles team doesn't get enough credit, considering it was their 4th cup against, arguably, one of the best teams of all-time, certainly the best offensive team and player of all time.
 
Last edited:

DLR1970

Registered User
Mar 13, 2013
43
0
South Carolina
Isles went down fighting doing the best they could IMO. 5 straight SC Finals. Rangers series in the first round had to have been tough. I forget who they played second round. Was it the Caps? The conference Finals vs Montreal they dropped the first 2, I remember that well. Coming back and winning the next 4 straight took something out of them as well. 5 Straight finals, lots of hockey, 2 tough series before the SC Finals, and playing against a younger and hungrier opponent that had learned some lessons. Impossible series for NYI to win.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad