If a team of today played a team of yesterday... who would win?

[Sens Rule]

Call me an ignorant kid (age 19), but I think that the '07 Ducks would destroy the '77 Habs, given that the both teams have the same equipment.

I do not care that the '77 Habs had a hundred future Hall of Famers. The fact is that an average NHL player in those days was a lightyears behind the today's players, hence today's superstars would have been inhuman players in the 70's. That is a fact in my opinion.

I don't want to dishonor the 77 Habs in any way. I'm sure they were a magnificent team. I just hate it when people are trying to compare sports teams from different era, which IMO is stupid, impossible and waste of time. It's like asking who would've won in a war, the Roman legions or U.S Marine Corps. "Yeah but the Roman legions had THREE THOUSAND Hall of Famers". It just doesn't matter in the end.

I agree the AVERGAGE NHLer is alot better now than they were in 1977. However I believe the differenc ein top end players is far, far less. Lafleur is going to dominate in any era and so would Niedermeyer or Pronger.

The thing is the 1977 Habs did not have any average players. There were 17 NHL teams then and 8 WHA teams. That is 25 teams. The Habs were a virtual all-star team. They had the best goalie, the best forwards and the best defence. They had 3 Big time defencemen while the Ducks had 2. The Ducks had Pahlsson while the Habs had Gainey AND Jarvis. Imagine you took the 2007 Wings, Sens, Ducks and Sabres. Then took the best players from those teams and made up a team of the best of those teams (taking into consideration 2 scoring lines 1 checking line and some role players and 5 Defencemen) then you have the 1977/78 Habs.

The Habs did not really have average players and any they barely played.

Take an average 1977 team and an average 2007 team and I think the 2007 team wins rather handily. The 1977 Habs were not average they were practically an all-star team.

 

[Guillemin]

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).

It's bound to happen eventually. And when the NHL brings in their ridiculous new rules disallowing accidental head shots, you won't be able to hit the Giontas and St Louis' for fear of suspension.

Come 6 years, that team would be untouchable, quite literally.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

2007 Ducks arent even that great. Some of the 90's Detroit or Pens or Avs teams would wreck them.

 

[raleh]

I think it's silly to compare the '77 Habs to the '07 Ducks. The '70's habs were among the four best teams in the history of the game ('50's Habs, '80's Isles, '70's Habs, '80's Oilers IMO). It's not like the Ducks have been any more dominant than most teams that win the cup. How about you change the discussion to the '61 Hawks. A very talented team that should have won more than they did, but they only have the one cup. One series that I would like to see is the '74 Flyers against the '07 Ducks. Anaheim wouldn't be able to throw their weight around in that series.

 

[Sens Rule]

I think it's silly to compare the '77 Habs to the '07 Ducks. The '70's habs were among the four best teams in the history of the game ('50's Habs, '80's Isles, '70's Habs, '80's Oilers IMO). It's not like the Ducks have been any more dominant than most teams that win the cup. How about you change the discussion to the '61 Hawks. A very talented team that should have won more than they did, but they only have the one cup. One series that I would like to see is the '74 Flyers against the '07 Ducks. Anaheim wouldn't be able to throw their weight around in that series.

If the 2007 Ducks had a chance of facing the 74 Flyers they would have picked up Boogard, McGrattan and Cairns at the deadline.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Not only are you ignorant, but you can't formulate an argument. Comparing changes in hockey over 30 years to changes in the military from 2,000 years? I can tell you were near the back of the pack in debate class.

The average NHL player was lightyears behind today's NHLer. What a convincing argument. And how many players from the 1970s Montreal Canadiens were average players? Last I checked, Larry Robinson is still the blue print for the big, mobile defenceman. Last I checked, Guy LaFleur had terrific speed and a bullet shot, Jacques Lemaire had brilliant hockey sense, Steve Shutt had timing around the net that nobody could teach, etc. People called Shutt the garbage man, and while he certainly benefitted from playing with Lafleur, he was a terrific player within five feet in front of the net.

The biggest problem I have with people like you isn't your lack of knowledge or research, it's that you reduce players to being products. The top stars are better than the stars of the Original 6 and 1970s because of their equipment, nutrition, blah blah blah bullcrap. It takes natural talent, work ethic, the desire to do the little things - those things that actually determine greatness.

It's not nutrition that makes a great offensive player. It's his ability to think the game, his ability to anticipate, etc. I can teach a guy how to shoot. I can't teach him how to score goals. So much of goal scoring is instincts. I can teach a kid how to stick-handle and pass. I can't teach him to see the ice, I can't teach him how to seemingly know what his opponent is thinking before his opponent knows.

Why was Wayne Gretzky the most dangerous offensive player of all-time? Why would Gretzky push for 200 points in today's NHL? Because of his training, equipment or nutrition? No. Because he saw and thought the game at another level, because of his work ethic and because of his preparation.

And the all-time greats have the fundamentals that you can't teach. I can teach a player how to skate. I can't teach him how to skate like Howie Morenz, Yvon Cournoyer, Bobby Orr, Pavel Bure (with the puck), Paul Coffey or Scott Niedermayer. Orr would still be as fast as anyone in today's game. I can teach power skating. I can't teach it like Mark Messier or Jaromir Jagr. I can teach stick-handling. I can't teach him to stick-handle like Max Bentley or Kent Nilsson. I can teach him to stand in front of the net. I can't teach him to do the things that Phil Esposito, Dave Andreychuk or Tim Kerr would do in front of the net.

In some ways, the game has evolved. In other ways, it has regressed. The average player is bigger, faster and shoots harder than 30 years ago. Every player now has a hard shot. But success in hockey is far more than just size, skating and shooting. Does the average player work harder than 30 years ago? Does the average player think the game as well as 30 years ago? I've seen a lot of big, strong, fast-skating, hard-shooting players flop in the NHL. I've seen a lot fewer flop with great hockey sense and work ethic.

Call me an ignorant kid (age 19), but I think that the '07 Ducks would destroy the '77 Habs, given that the both teams have the same equipment.

I do not care that the '77 Habs had a hundred future Hall of Famers. The fact is that an average NHL player in those days was a lightyears behind the today's players, hence today's superstars would have been inhuman players in the 70's. That is a fact in my opinion.

I don't want to dishonor the 77 Habs in any way. I'm sure they were a magnificent team. I just hate it when people are trying to compare sports teams from different era, which IMO is stupid, impossible and waste of time. It's like asking who would've won in a war, the Roman legions or U.S Marine Corps. "Yeah but the Roman legions had THREE THOUSAND Hall of Famers". It just doesn't matter in the end.

 

[jaydub*]

no doubt the average player is better today than the average player 30 years ago. true in any sport. better training, better nutrition, etc.

 

[raleh]

I'll never understand the ignorance of some people in hockey. People in every other sport that I am close to all realize how great the athletes of the past are. Pappy mentioned Roger Bannister earlier. In the 1952 Olympics Roger Bannister ran about 4 seconds faster than I have run for the same distance. That's a decent gap, but not a huge one. A four second gap is pretty close in a mile. It would seem as though people on these boards would consider me to be 4 seconds worse than Bannister. The fact is, I would be honored if Mr. Bannister allowed me to wash his jersey for him. He is a world class miler in ANY ERA!!

In horse racing- does the fact that Man'O War in the '20's was quite a bit slower than today's top horses? He would eat any of today's horses for breakfast if they raced.

These are sports that are based COMPLETELY on fitness. Hockey is a skill sport, so these things are even more true. The 1977 Habs would demolish the 2007 Ducks. It's not even close. The Ducks biggest asset- Nieds and Prongs- are nothing compared to Robinson and Savard. The things that make a hockey player great have been the same since the early 1900's. Everything the Ducks had this year the Habs had way more of. GBC pretty much said everything there was to say about that team. You had to be something very special to beat them, and as good as they were this year, the Ducks were not that. Not a single player from Anaheim this year would crack Montreal circa 1977's top 6. Maybe Selanne, but definitely not the way he played in the playoffs.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I'll never understand the ignorance of some people in hockey. People in every other sport that I am close to all realize how great the athletes of the past are.

Yup, no sport disrespects the past like hockey fans do.

I think the problem is the huge differences era to era. In most other sports there are statistical benchmarks that stand, to some degree, regardless of era, but, in the NHL, that's just not the case.

And yet, hockey is one of the few sports were it is the intangibles that make the player. Nels Stewart couldn't skate even by the standards of his era, yet he finished his career the all-time leader in goals and points. Hasek's technique is horrible and should never be imitated by anyone, yet he's the only goalie to be a multiple MVP. Guys like Fluery and Clancy looked like their opponent's kid brother, yet both were stars. The Bentley brothers were muscularly weak by the standards of their era, and yet they dominated.

At the end of the day, history has always shown that the only consistant determinant of the ability to win is the ability to win. (And yes, I know that is a falacious argument, that's the point.)

 

[Ronald Pagan]

Have to agree with the two above posters. It's just silly to claim that the players now inately better than players in the past. It's all instrumental differences between players from this era and from previous eras. Instrumental meaning that it isn't an inate difference but something that could be learned or practised something that gives no real advantage to today's players.

If you plucked Tim Horton from 1962 and acclimatized him now with some regular conditioning, equipment, and strength training (not like he'd need much) he would be a dominant defensive defenceman right now. Why? Because he had talent, heart, desire and other inate abilities that you just can't practise or teach.

Therefore saying that teams now are better than teams before is just ridiculous. It's all instrumental differences. I'll tell you what though, there is no way the Ducks would beat the '77 Canadiens if we went just with pure player abilities all other things remaining constant.

There's also no doubt in my mind that Rocket Richard couldn't be a 50 goal scorer right now. Talent transcends equipment, training, and the like.

Now show some respect to your elders. The game of hockey is where it is because of the great contributions from the superstars of yesterday.

 

[Sens Rule]

The thing I am infuriated about in regards to fans questioning players of the past is that many young fans believe that there is this masive difference from the mid-1970's to today. some believe than Lafleur or Clarke or Gainey or Park would not dominate today and be pretty much just as good as they were in thier time. Some are Pejorative Slured enough to believe the likes of Potvin, Orr, Park could not even make the AHL today.

I can see thinking Morenz or Vezina would be far lesser players today but the greats of the 1970's who played into the 1980's and dominated and who in turn saw the young 1980's players they taught and dominated be excellent stars in the mid 1990's when rthey were 35 years old.

Denis Potvin is kicking ass in the NHL today if he is 25 years old. He is in the top 3 with Nieds, Pronger and Lidstorm and more likely the bette than all 3. And I think he is that way jumping out of a time machine with no new training or diet or anything.

Gretzky freakishly dominates the NHL at 23-26 years old in 1950 or 1965 or 1980 or 1985 or 1995 or 2005 or 2015 or 2040. He is Wayne freaking Gretzky. Give him a game or 2 and he knows what you are going to do next before you know.

 

[Ronald Pagan]

I would also like the address the myth that somehow goalies are alot better today than goalies of the past.

First, there were only 6 goalies in the whole league up until the 70s. Think of the best six goalies in the world right now and that's your goalie talent pool in the old NHL.

Second, I recommend anyone go watch a classic game and watch the goalies actually making saves. Instead of the increasingly routined activity of 'blocking' pucks, goalies did not have the large equipment advantage or the conditioning/flexibility advantage that goalies now do. But that didn't mean the games were routinely 10-12 or 9-8 scores. No, goalies like Sawchuk and Plante were forced to make unbelievable saves routinely. Just go watch, you'll be amazed at the style these guys had.

Bottom line, there is no way that any of the top goalies from yesteryear would not flourish in today's padding and conditioning. These guys were the real deal.

 

[Dream Big]

Watching 1974 2nd game of Stanley Cup Final

I'm watching this 70' era game which Philly won against Boston. Sudden death overtime with Bobby Clarke scoring the winning goal. Great names playing were Bobby Orr, Ken Hodge, Esposito, Schautz, etc.

1. I find really interesting besides no one wearing helmets is how little hitting there is. Players don't finish very many checks. They go out of their way to avoid most contact. There is the occassional hooking and holding which is unacceptable now.

2. Players today seem to be much more physical muscling each other off the puck, lining up people for the hit on the wall, open ice hits.

3. Skill such as passing and shooting look comparable. Mind you shooting from the top circle wasn't used alot in the 1974 game I watched.

4. Players didn't do the quick line changes so there was some coasting going on.

Conditioning and physical play would give the edge and the win to the modern era. Old school would lose.

 

[jiggs 10]

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.

Yes, but that was also the time of Bill Clement, Andre Dupont, Rick Ley, and dozens of others who really shouldn't have even been in the NHL due to their poor skating and skills.

The question wasn't if the '77 Habs would win, it was ANY GIVEN TEAMS. So my answer is...if a lower tier '77 team (Caps, Leafs, Barons, etc.) played any team from today, they would get beat. I say that knowing full well Columbus is a 2007 team! I just think the game, in general, has speeded up and become too fast for the have-nots of that era.

Now, if you want to go Cup champs head-to-head, the Habs win in 5 over the Ducks. Neidermeyer would not even be noticed on the ice, and Pronger would be out of the series by the end of the first game, thanks to Gilles Lupien or someone like that. Or maybe Larry Robinson would just go ahead and do the honors.
Lafleur, even going against goalies 1/3 bigger than from his era, would score 5 goals in a 5-game series, IMO, and Dryden would give up 4 or 5 for the entire series!

The equipment thing is always brought up, but other than today's ridiculous-sized goalie gear, would not be a factor. Hull, Orr, and others shot over 100 MPH with plain wood sticks. No one today can do it with the composite stick! Sure, injuries may play a factor (better skates=fewer broken feet, for example), but this series would be over quickly enough that I don't think that would be a huge factor.

 

[TheJudge]

You need to clarify the conditions of the game in order for me to give an appropriate response.

If there is a time machine, and the hab's are sent up "as is" to face the ducks "as is", the habs will lose. The equipment they were using would be completely obsolete causing them to be slower skaters, less accurate and powerful shooters, and cause them to be unable to handle the physicality that anaheim would bring. The likes of Teemu Selanne shooting at a stand-up style goalie in old equipment would be beyond ridiculous. How would the habs beat a good trapping system without the counter measures that have since been developed? The equipment has evolved, the goaltending has evolved, the strategy has evolved, and the fitness of players has evolved to the point that despite the fact that the 77 habs may be more talented, talent alone would not be enough.

Now, if the teams are somehow made equal in both equipment and training, then the 77 habs will win as they have the more talented team.

It simply depends whether you allow the teams of today to have the advantages that evolution brings or not.

 

[JaymzB]

You need to clarify the conditions of the game in order for me to give an appropriate response.

If there is a time machine, and the hab's are sent up "as is" to face the ducks "as is", the habs will lose. The equipment they were using would be completely obsolete causing them to be slower skaters, less accurate and powerful shooters, and cause them to be unable to handle the physicality that anaheim would bring. The likes of Teemu Selanne shooting at a stand-up style goalie in old equipment would be beyond ridiculous. How would the habs beat a good trapping system without the counter measures that have since been developed? The equipment has evolved, the goaltending has evolved, the strategy has evolved, and the fitness of players has evolved to the point that despite the fact that the 77 habs may be more talented, talent alone would not be enough.

Now, if the teams are somehow made equal in both equipment and training, then the 77 habs will win as they have the more talented team.

It simply depends whether you allow the teams of today to have the advantages that evolution brings or not.

I'm not going to go into your post a whole lot, but this stood out to me. Considering the Habs of the 70's played a version of the "trap", I don't think they would have too many problems dealing with it.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

ahh but it has EVERYTHING to do with the year. as someone mentioned time marches on. no global scouting in one generation as opposed to the next. the other thing i really want to mention is goaltending. the butterfly has revolutionized the way the position is played and its fairly new to the game. do you know what players of this era would do to goaltenders of the 70's? theyd be lucky if the pucks hit them accidentally. none of them faced guys shooting as hard as they do now none of them dealt with the kind of traffic in front that the goalies today deal with. that alone would put any team with a goaltender of today's nhl ahead of any team from the 70's and 80's. im sorry this may hurt some feelings but danny cloutier traveling back in time with his equipment, skill, and technique of today would be a revolutionary annual vezina winner if he went back to 1972.

LOL

It's obvious you didn't watch much hockey in the 70's....guess what? With the equipment from the 70's....you have no butterfly. You put that Montreal 1977 team with modern equipment and not only do they sweep, I very much doubt the Ducks score more than 4 goals the whole series. You put the Ducks in the same equipment as the 77 teams had to wear I wonder what Gigeure's save % would be?

This is not a shot against the Ducks or the Hurricanes or the Lightning, but man the 1977 Montreal team was the greatest ever. There is not a team in history that could take them down in a 7 game series.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

Yes, but that was also the time of Bill Clement, Andre Dupont, Rick Ley, and dozens of others who really shouldn't have even been in the NHL due to their poor skating and skills.

The question wasn't if the '77 Habs would win, it was ANY GIVEN TEAMS. So my answer is...if a lower tier '77 team (Caps, Leafs, Barons, etc.) played any team from today, they would get beat. I say that knowing full well Columbus is a 2007 team! I just think the game, in general, has speeded up and become too fast for the have-nots of that era.

Now, if you want to go Cup champs head-to-head, the Habs win in 5 over the Ducks. Neidermeyer would not even be noticed on the ice, and Pronger would be out of the series by the end of the first game, thanks to Gilles Lupien or someone like that. Or maybe Larry Robinson would just go ahead and do the honors.
Lafleur, even going against goalies 1/3 bigger than from his era, would score 5 goals in a 5-game series, IMO, and Dryden would give up 4 or 5 for the entire series!

The equipment thing is always brought up, but other than today's ridiculous-sized goalie gear, would not be a factor. Hull, Orr, and others shot over 100 MPH with plain wood sticks. No one today can do it with the composite stick! Sure, injuries may play a factor (better skates=fewer broken feet, for example), but this series would be over quickly enough that I don't think that would be a huge factor.

You know the late 70's Leaf teams were not lower tier right?

 

[member 51464]

but man the 1977 Montreal team was the greatest ever. There is not a team in history that could take them down in a 7 game series.

really?

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

really?

Ya, really

 

[jiggs 10]

Bobby Hull's 118mph slapshot is just legend. There's no documented proof of it.........nor does any known article written in his playing day even mention such a thing.

Uhhh...The Guiness Book of World Records has it, and they are THE final say in things of this nature, due to the way they research and conduct these tests. It was done in 1968 with a speed gun (not the JUGGS gun that came along in 1975, but a prototype). I trust the goalies who played against Hull in the WHA and later in the NHL in the early 80's who say NO ONE could shoot as hard as Hull.

 

[jiggs 10]

You know the late 70's Leaf teams were not lower tier right?

They were not world-beaters, THAT'S for sure! They scraped into the playoffs in 1979, but before that....

You know what I mean. They were not the Bruins, Habs, Isles, Rangers, etc. in terms of anything but TV coverage, due to HNiC.

 

[pappyline]

Uhhh...The Guiness Book of World Records has it, and they are THE final say in things of this nature, due to the way they research and conduct these tests. It was done in 1968 with a speed gun (not the JUGGS gun that came along in 1975, but a prototype). I trust the goalies who played against Hull in the WHA and later in the NHL in the early 80's who say NO ONE could shoot as hard as Hull.

I think you mean to say "earlier in the NHL & later in the WHA". In any event hull was finished by the 80's. However, I do agree with you on the speed of his shot although a Lot of posters here have a tough time with it. Guiness didn't put things in their book unless it was well documented.

 

[Dintrox]

To the guy that said "coaching is better now". The coach of the 1977 Canadiens was Scotty Bowman the best coach ever.. Teams today would love to get scotty behind the bench...

I still think that 1977 Habs team would take a good crack at any of todays NHL teams provided with equal equipment... That D alone is pretty formidable ...Todays talent is way to dilute.. You can't build a team like that anymore.

 

[GNick42]

Say any given team from 2007 took on any given team from 1977

Both teams played their era's style.. who would win?

I think the 2007 team would win because the game has gotten progressively fast.

I can't see any team today coming close to the '76 Canadiens. That is widely rumoured to be the best team ever