ck26
Alcoholab User
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 29,092
- 13,543
The '77 Habs would thoroughly dismantle most '07 teams and I'd give them even odds to win against every '07 team.
Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 74
This is going to get stupid fast.
If 2007 team plays with 2007 equipment and the team from 30 or 40 or 50 years ago play with their equipment of course today's team would win. Their Goalie has twice as big of equipment and heck their goalie wears a mask and all the players where helmets.
I can't speak for more than I have watched hockey but from the early 80's on.........
and with each team in similar equipment - either today's equipment or the older eras equipment or a combo of both and the 80's Isles, 80's Oilers, mid 90's Wings all would probably beat either the 2007 Ducks or Sens in a 7 game series. I don't think there is that much of difference in how good the BEST teams are in the last 25 years.
Take the mid 80's Leafs or North Stars or Devils and have them face today's weakest teams like this year's Flyers or Kings and I think probably the 2007 team wins.
If 2007 team plays with 2007 equipment and the team from 30 or 40 or 50 years ago play with their equipment of course today's team would win. Their Goalie has twice as big of equipment and heck their goalie wears a mask and all the players where helmets.
I can't speak for more than I have watched hockey but from the early 80's on.........
and with each team in similar equipment - either today's equipment or the older eras equipment or a combo of both and the 80's Isles, 80's Oilers, mid 90's Wings all would probably beat either the 2007 Ducks or Sens in a 7 game series. I don't think there is that much of difference in how good the BEST teams are in the last 25 years.
Take the mid 80's Leafs or North Stars or Devils and have them face today's weakest teams like this year's Flyers or Kings and I think probably the 2007 team wins.
Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 74
Who would care it is an All-Star game.
Take the 1987 Canada Cup Canadian Team against the 2002 Canadian Olympic team in a seven game series and I think it would be really close. It could go either way.
ck26
Alcoholab User
Maybe so, but he made the mistake of specifically saying "30 years ago", home of Guy LaFleur, Larry Robinson, Bob Gainey, Steve Shutt, Jacques Lemaire, Pete Mahovlich, Yvan Cournoyer, Mario Tremblay, Serge Savard, Douggie Jarvis and Ken Dryden.
That team wins the Cup in any era.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,123
- 14,316
There are a few important things to consider.
1. Like Sens said, equipment is crucial. Players' equipment is lighter and more streamlined today, and goalies' equipment covers much more of the net. If modern players had the advantage of using current equipment, and older players had to use older equipment, modern players would definitely win. But that says more about the importance of equipment in hockey than it does about the quality of the players. It's certainly possible that Bobby Hull, with with a light, composite stick, could score 60 goals in today's NHL.
2. What officiating standards would be in place? There's far more interference and clutching & grabbing in the modern NHL than there was prior to the nineties. If the refs called the game the way it used to be called, the modern team would spend all game in the penalty box, and the older team would surely win.
3. How would roster sizes be adjusted? This is a problem if you go back to, say, the 1950s and earlier. In the past, roster sizes were considerably smaller, thereby forcing stars to routinely play 30-50 minutes per game. Naturally this tires them out faster and makes them more prone to injuries. I wonder how Niedermayer & Pronger would fare playing 45 minutes every game, or how Selanne & McDonald would do playing 35 each night.
One factor that I think is largely irrelevant is size (height and weight). Martin St. Louis (5'9", 180 lbs) won a Hart and Art Ross playing against Zdeno Chara (6'9", 260 lbs) and other enormous defensemen. Surely players like Howe, Hull, Horton, Esposito, and many others, are physically large and strong enough to survive in the modern NHL.
I realize I haven't really answered your question. It's a tough question because there are so many important factors to consider.
Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 74
I think he wrote his first post differently and edited it after he posted it - I replied to it as he first wrote it - I think anyway. He did not say 1977 at first. Or he did and I am going crazy........
Anyway as I said in my post I can only reply about the teams I saw - and that starts early/mid 1980's.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 29,092
- 13,543
Actually, I think size would play a HUGE factor.
It may not be a big deal for individual players......but when a whole team is extremely undersized you start running into problems (i.e. a whole team of Martin St. Louis' would get crushed).
Of couse the all-time greats can play in any era - no doubt about it; but I think your 'average' player of the past would have a difficult time overcoming the size discrepancy.
For instance, a typical team of the 1960's usually only had 3-5 players over 200 lbs. Seriously, that is a team of midgets by todays standards.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
1976-77 season teams and players? They would win every 7-game series.
Bobby Hull - Phil Esposito - Guy Lafleur
Bob Gainey - Bobby Clarke - Lanny McDonald
Steve Shutt - Marcel Dionne - Reggie Leach
Pete Mahovlich - Darryl Sittler - Danny Gare
Larry Robinson - Bobby Orr
Denis Potvin - Borje Salming
Guy Lapointe - Serge Savard
Ken Dryden
Rogie Vachon
AS for size and strength, Hull is a bull, Esposito is 6'1 and built like a tank, Clarke and McDonald are as tough as nails, Mahovlich 6'5, and the blueline has three at 6'0 and then there's Salming 6'1, Robinson 6'3, Savard 6'3.
And the team from '76-'77 season assembled here is just the Canadian players. A Soviet and even Czechoslovakian all-star team from the seventies could beat any NHL team of today.
Bobby Hull - Phil Esposito - Guy Lafleur
Bob Gainey - Bobby Clarke - Lanny McDonald
Steve Shutt - Marcel Dionne - Reggie Leach
Pete Mahovlich - Darryl Sittler - Danny Gare
Larry Robinson - Bobby Orr
Denis Potvin - Borje Salming
Guy Lapointe - Serge Savard
Ken Dryden
Rogie Vachon
AS for size and strength, Hull is a bull, Esposito is 6'1 and built like a tank, Clarke and McDonald are as tough as nails, Mahovlich 6'5, and the blueline has three at 6'0 and then there's Salming 6'1, Robinson 6'3, Savard 6'3.
And the team from '76-'77 season assembled here is just the Canadian players. A Soviet and even Czechoslovakian all-star team from the seventies could beat any NHL team of today.
Last edited:
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 29,092
- 13,543
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
How much of a game is played at top speed,10%? Half speed,50%? The rest of the game is special teams and less than half speed play. I find speed overrated but quickness underrated.
i'll take the team from the 70's. just in pure toughness, the ducks versus the canadiens would be a sweep. the habs would dismantle anaheim.
and equpiment is important. let the ducks take their helmets off, lets see how hard they play then.
and equpiment is important. let the ducks take their helmets off, lets see how hard they play then.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,145
Well a team from 1927 would get cloberred today against the 2007 Ducks. Just because of the size issue. When "big" guys are 5'10" that's a problem. Keep in mind even in 1972 the average size in the NHL was 5'11" 185 lbs. Now its about 6'1" 205 maybe? I have no doubt Guy Lafleur wold be the best player in the game today along with Crosby if you implanted a Guy from 1977 in there. But average players wouldnt cut it. A back-up goalie form the 1970's would be lucky if he could stop pucks from the OHL today.
silly. ANY 07 team would beat the best any team from the 60's 70's 80's and 90's would have to offer. equipment, speed, size, systems, strength, conditioning i mean its night and day and any of the oldtimers that actually played in the league would tell you the same. goaltending alone would be ridiculous. danny cloutier would be an mvp candidate in 1977 if he went back in time with his equipment, talent, and technique.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
The 1998 Canadian Olympic team had little chemistry and way too many centers.
But I'm not sure what the point of suggesting this match-up would be.
The 1998 Detroit Red Wings would sweep the floor with the Ducks of 2007.
Yzerman, Shanahan, Fedorov, Larionov, Slava Kozlov and surprisingly good playoffs by Lapointe and Murphy, not to mention Lidstrom, Holmstrom and McCarty all double digits in scoring.
The idea that hockey is progressive, getting better year after year, belies the fact that many of the greatest ever players are no longer playing hockey. Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin may or may not be the next Bossy, Gretzky, Mario but they certainly aren't any better.
The 80 Islanders would paste the Ducks as would the late 80 Oilers and 70's Canadiens. Speed,strength,size don't add up to hockey talent. Plenty of speedsters suck-only faster. Plenty of big,strong guys also suck. Give me talent no matter what physical dimensions,upgraded equipment or speed you possess. Is there more overall talent in the NHL today? Absolutely,because of worldwide NHL scouting,not because of the year. Danny C would be Danny C-no better no worse.
Snap Wilson
Registered User
- Sep 14, 2003
- 5,838
- 0
tony d
Registered User
I think a team of 30 years ago would beat a team from today easily, because there where less teams, the players had more talent, I bet that some of the 4th liners on the Anaheim Ducks wouldn't have got a look in on a team in 1977.
Snap Wilson
Registered User
- Sep 14, 2003
- 5,838
- 0
Without getting into the specifics re: the Ducks fourth liners, I'm going to disagree with you on that first part.
Players are better now. Bigger, faster, and stronger. Equipment is better now. Scouting is better now, and teams draw from a much larger (global) pool. Coaching is way better now. Conditioning and medicine are better now: in the seventies, you had players that chain-smoked in the locker room between periods. No way you could get away with that today.
I don't mean to step on all this seventies love. I'm not comparing George Parros to Guy Lafleur or anything like that, but to say that a team from the seventies would easily beat teams today... it just ain't true. Any more than a high-end sports car from the '70s could outrace one today. Time marches on.
Devils Dominion
Now we Plummet
Teams in the late 70's/early 80's had more skilled players, since there were not as many teams, but the players of today are bigger and stronger and play the game at a much faster pace.
