Round 2, Vote 10 (HOH Top Defensemen)

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Allan Stanley/Fern Flaman

I think I'm leaning towards Tom Johnson over Flaman, but it's close. Johnson only got to show what he could do as a #1 once - and he won the Norris.

On the other hand, Flaman was the best player on a team that made the finals twice.

Those two are definitely at least a step up from Stanley and Howell, IMO.

I'm also not ready to dismiss Boucher/Cameron just yet.

Flaman was on the cup winning 1951 Leafs.

On the other hand the Stanley cup finalist Bruins that you refer to fell apart defensively after Stanley was traded to the Leafs in 1958 even though Flaman along with Boivin and Armstrong remained.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,301
2,896
George Boucher played forward up until 1920. After Sprague Cleghorn left, he switched back to defence in the 1920-21 season.

In the 1920 Stanley Cup finals, Ottawa played 5 forwards - Frank Nighbor, Jack Darragh, Punch Broadbent, George Boucher, and Cy Denneny. Nighbor played centre, and the other four played primarily wing. I'm not sure who played centre when Nighbor was off - I would guess Darragh, who was probably their next best all-around forward at that point.

In Game 1, Darragh and Broadbent started. But all four wingers were mentioned prominently in the game summary, and it mentioned that Boucher played much of the third period, when Ottawa finally managed to carry the play after spending two periods on the defensive.

Game 2 was played under Coast rules, meaning it was seven man hockey. Boucher played rover, and he was the star of the game. Ottawa Citizen, Mar 24, 1920:
George Boucher, the individual star of the big match, was cheered to the echo throughout...
While all of the Ottawas played good hockey under the circumstances...one player stood out brightly in the big struggle viz: George Boucher. For the full hour the husky New Edinburgh boy was up and down the ice like a flash. He rushed in dazzling style, backchecked with great effect, and became the most consistent puck carrier on the ice. Boucher stickhandled in and out of the maze of Seattle players like a wizard, and time after time he brought the crowd to its feet.

In Games 3 and 4, Boucher and Darragh were the starting wingers, and Broadbent and Denneny subbed. Again, it looks as if all 4 wingers got a lot of play.

Boucher started the 1920-21 season as a sub also, behind Gerard and Cleghorn. But, after the third game of the season, the NHL ruled that Sprague Cleghorn had to leave Ottawa and report to Toronto. Boucher moved back to fill the vacant defence position. A game recap in the Ottawa Citizen from Jan 13, 1921 places him at point and Eddie Gerard at cover point. Later recaps place them both at defence.

The Citizen mentioned on Mar 3, 1921 that "Boucher...had struggled along for most of the second half (ed. of the season) with a very painful hip, and was out of the game altogether."

By the 1921 Stanley Cup finals, Boucher was solidly entrenched alongside Eddie Gerard on the back line. Ottawa signed Sprague Cleghorn was signed for the playoffs, and played him as a substitute behind the starters Gerard and Boucher. During the games where seven man hockey was played, Cleghorn played rover and Boucher remained on defence.

Overall, Boucher's career looked like this:

1915-16 to 1919-20 (age 19 -23): Winger, mostly a substitute behind Cy Denneny and Jack Darragh. In the final one of those seasons he took on a prominent role in the Cup finals, playing rover in the 7-man games and starring.

1920-21 to 1926-27 (age 24-30): High-scoring star defenceman. He played the first three seasons alongside Eddie Gerard, and Ottawa won the Stanley Cup in two of those seasons. He played one season with Lionel Hitchman, and then King Clancy became his regular partner. Boucher's scoring dropped toward the latter part of this period - he was probably losing his speed at this point, and Clancy was developing into the main offensive option from the back. His PIM also rose in the last three seasons during this stretch - possibly an indicator that he was less mobile? 1926-27 was the last season that Boucher finished top 10 in Hart voting.

1927-28 (age 31): Starting defenceman, but probably not a star anymore.

1928-29 to 1931-32 (age 32-35): Substitute defenceman. Behind King Clancy and Alex Smith in Ottawa, then with the Maroons for two years and Chicago for one year.
 
Last edited:

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
I'm pretty sure Lester Patrick was the second best defenseman in PCHA history (behind Moose Johnson). I just have no idea how that translates into the larger talent pool, or how it compares to guys like Cameron and Boucher.

Aren't Moose Johnson and Lester Patrick, the only HHOF defensemen to peak in the PCHA? It makes it hard to tell just how good Patrick was.

I'm also not sure what makes Patrick better than his contemporary Art Ross (who played in the NHA), to be honest, other than perhaps better information. (I think I had both Ross and Patrick in the late 50s on my submitted list).

I wonder who the 3rd guy would be after Moose and Patrick?

As this project is for what players did on the ice, I'm having a really hard time with Patrick making it this round for as a player his career is a little underwhelming.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Thinking about these players generationally. This might help spark some comparisons?

Lester Patrick 1904-1928

Harry Cameron 1912-1933
Georges Boucher 1915-1933

Sylvio Mantha 1923-1937
Babe Siebert 1925-1939

Ken Reardon 1940-1950

Fern Flaman 1943-1964
Allan Stanley 1946-1969
Tom Johnson 1947-1965

Harry Howell 1952-1976
Carl Brewer 1957-1980

Doug Wilson 1977-1993
Larry Murphy 1980-2001


And the internationals:
Alexander Ragulin 1957-1973
Jan Suchy 1963-1983


Personally I think of Murphy and Wilson as being at the very low-end of the 1980s/1990s cohort, as far as top-60 ranking is concerned. I guess we have kind of tapped out that era by now. Similarly, Siebert and Mantha are the last of their generation that should make it. After them, we get into some pretty weak options.

On the other hand, the pre-1920s group is still fairly small with only 3 entries so far. For anyone interested in era balance, you might look to Patrick, Boucher, and Cameron. Also, Ken Reardon would only be the second candidate after Quackenbush to represent a late-1940s peak.

And then there are the Europeans. IMO, Suchy is in a good position based on last round's voting, and the lack of attractive new options.


I think to be fair, Murphy did play at a very good to excellent level for a very long time in a golden age for Dmen (Just ask R71) and Reardon played in the pretty weak post war era, until Harvey and Kelly came around.

I'm ranking guys on how they compare to other players in the same round and sadly it's getting pretty thin here but I think we should avoid trying to slot certain players if their era is under represented or hold guys back who played with better competition.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Horrific coaching - Phil Watson, Alf Pike, Red Sullivan. Until Doug Harvey came along in 1961 Harry Howell had an excellent defensive game but was reluctant offensively.Harvey influenced his offensive technique and confidence.

His excellent defense didn't seem to help the NYR very much. they had a poor team to be sure but...

Also Howell's playoff resume is just plain horrible.

My guess is that Wilson is a better one time Norris wonder this round than Howell is.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,301
2,896
His excellent defense didn't seem to help the NYR very much. they had a poor team to be sure but...

One thing to consider is that being a top defender on a bad defensive team in the Original Six is still much more impressive than being a top defender on a bad defensive team post-expansion.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
One thing to consider is that being a top defender on a bad defensive team in the Original Six is still much more impressive than being a top defender on a bad defensive team post-expansion.

How so, wouldn't we rate each player on their skills?
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,301
2,896
How so, wouldn't we rate each player on their skills?

Sure.

But if you are looking at the best defencemen on the worst defensive teams, you have to take the strength of league into consideration.

In 1963-64, the worst defensive teams were the Rangers and the Bruins. Their top defencemen were Harry Howell, Jim Neilson, Tom Johnson, and Ted Green. All four made multiple preliminary lists for this project.

In 1973-74, the worst defensive teams were the Golden Seals and the Red Wings. Their top defencemen were Larry Johnston, Brent Hughes, Marshall Johnston, and Terry Murray. You may remember them as GMs, but probably not as players.

Being a bad team was very different in the late Original Six, when the league talent was extremely strong.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Sure.

But if you are looking at the best defencemen on the worst defensive teams, you have to take the strength of league into consideration.

In 1963-64, the worst defensive teams were the Rangers and the Bruins. Their top defencemen were Harry Howell, Jim Neilson, Tom Johnson, and Ted Green. All four made multiple preliminary lists for this project.

In 1973-74, the worst defensive teams were the Golden Seals and the Red Wings. Their top defencemen were Larry Johnston, Brent Hughes, Marshall Johnston, and Terry Murray. You may remember them as GMs, but probably not as players.

Being a bad team was very different in the late Original Six, when the league talent was extremely strong.

Okay that's a little more clear as you are talking about specific seasons and late 06 compared to the absolute worse in a very unbalanced league from top-bottom in the early 70's.

It might even be the general rule but we need to be careful of over generalizations as well.

as for the 5 guys listed, I'm not sure that they are on their listed specifically because of anything they did in 64 but either later or earlier in their careers are considered their peak.

As well, for those guys being on some of the preliminary lists it may have been to other factors than simply deserving to be on the "top 80 of all time list", there is a strong ATD and "historical perspective from the overall group in this project.

As for this current round Howell still looks pretty weak overall and that's in a weak group of candidates as well.

Just as a side note, including the 4 guys you mentioned close to 50% of all Dmen who played in over half the games in the league that year probably showed up on some of the lists of 80 (13 or so of the 30)and that's before Ragulin.

Even if one has a great respect for late 06 hockey that seems like it could be really high IMO.

Something we will see and debate after we rank the 60 no doubt.
 
Last edited:

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
True but he was the defensive glue, straw that stirred the drink on teams defensively that went to the SC finals 7 out of 8 seasons.

The 7 out of 8 is definitely intriguing, but he was most definitely not the straw that stirred the drink of the Leafs dynasty at least. He was their third best defenseman behind Horton and Brewer (of course, that team probably had the best "big 4" defense of all time).

Horrific coaching - Phil Watson, Alf Pike, Red Sullivan. Until Doug Harvey came along in 1961 Harry Howell had an excellent defensive game but was reluctant offensively.Harvey influenced his offensive technique and confidence.

Okay, but Howell, didn't win the Norris until 1967. So did he sacrifice defense for offense until finally putting it all together for one season?

Because he was a 1960's relic who was slow in his prime. Saw the 1964 and 1965 games vs the Junior Canadiens at the old Forum and he was slow and indecisive. Closer John Hanna, Jean Gauthier, Noel Picard type player than Elmer Vasko, Surrounded with skilled and fast teammates.

I'm not a fan of Ragulin at this stage, but you have to be exaggerating. Are those World Championship games you're talking about? Ragulin was an All-Star at those games against that questionable competition, so he had to look good to most people.

Flaman was on the cup winning 1951 Leafs.

On the other hand the Stanley cup finalist Bruins that you refer to fell apart defensively after Stanley was traded to the Leafs in 1958 even though Flaman along with Boivin and Armstrong remained.

I know he was on the 1951 Leafs as a role player. Thie Bruins falling apart after Stanley left is worth looking at further.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
Here's a past bio for Fern Flaman:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=30906523&postcount=55

Not sure how useful it is in comparing him to other guys this round, but it certainly tells a lot about his style.

I'm not sure where I got that Flaman was the Bruins' most important player in the back to back Cup finals, to be honest. He was their All-Star defenseman and captain, though. Maybe I read that he "led them to the finals" and thought that meant he was their most important player, when really it meant he was their captain.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Coaching

How so, wouldn't we rate each player on their skills?

No we do not only rate players on their skills we also look at coaching. Old adage about great coaching - some one who will beat your team with his players then turn around and win with your players is the better coach.

Per Harry Howell. Rangers late fifties had more talent than the Bruins but inferior coaching - Phil Watson vs Milt Schmidt. Switch coaches and Rangers perform much better. Let Phil Watson coach the 5 SC Canadiens and the team does not come close to five cups. Watson was simply too toxic and a master at clutching defeat from the jaws of victory.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Subtle Distinction

The 7 out of 8 is definitely intriguing, but he was most definitely not the straw that stirred the drink of the Leafs dynasty at least. He was their third best defenseman behind Horton and Brewer (of course, that team probably had the best "big 4" defense of all time).



Okay, but Howell, didn't win the Norris until 1967. So did he sacrifice defense for offense until finally putting it all together for one season?



I'm not a fan of Ragulin at this stage, but you have to be exaggerating. Are those World Championship games you're talking about? Ragulin was an All-Star at those games against that questionable competition, so he had to look good to most people.



I know he was on the 1951 Leafs as a role player. Thie Bruins falling apart after Stanley left is worth looking at further.

There is a very subtle distinction that is often overlooked. A player does not have to be the best to allow the other players on his team or at his position to play better.

Allan Stanley with the Leafs formed the first pairing with Tim Horton. His presence allowed Tim Horton to focus strictly on his game without worrying about having to support a weak partner.

Carl Brewer formed the second pairing with Bob Baun. This allowed the young Brewer to develop without having to play the heavy minutes against the elite right wingers - Howe, etc. Horton and Stanley usually handled those shifts.

Third best - if you look at talent than Stanley was possibly third best - weakest skater of the 4 Leaf dmen but not by much. On the other hand he came to play night after night which was an issue with Carl Brewer.

Yup the WC - Look at Ragulin's NA competition for AS status at the WC. Your typical NA dman was at best four leagues removed from the NHL. - semi pro Canadian or American and he did not standout. by much. Some of the Canadian AS or USA AS - John Mayasich did not come close to the NHL.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
There is a very subtle distinction that is often overlooked. A player does not have to be the best to allow the other players on his team or at his position to play better.

Allan Stanley with the Leafs formed the first pairing with Tim Horton. His presence allowed Tim Horton to focus strictly on his game without worrying about having to support a weak partner.

Carl Brewer formed the second pairing with Bob Baun. This allowed the young Brewer to develop without having to play the heavy minutes against the elite right wingers - Howe, etc. Horton and Stanley usually handled those shifts.

Third best - if you look at talent than Stanley was possibly third best - weakest skater of the 4 Leaf dmen but not by much. On the other hand he came to play night after night which was an issue with Carl Brewer.

Okay. Sounds more like Stanley was the "missing piece" than anything. That's definitely a feather in his cap.

Yup the WC - Look at Ragulin's NA competition for AS status at the WC. Your typical NA dman was at best four leagues removed from the NHL. - semi pro Canadian or American and he did not standout. by much. Some of the Canadian AS or USA AS - John Mayasich did not come close to the NHL.

Okay. You have a good point about the competition. And you're entitled to your opinion obviously, but the people who voted Ragulin as a WC All Star obviously thought he stood out.
 
Last edited:

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
WC All Stars Pre 1972

Okay. Sounds more like Stanley was the "missing piece" than anything. That's definitely a feather in his cap.



Okay. You have a good point about the competition. And you're entitled to your opinion obviously, but the people who voted Ragulin as a WC All Star obviously thought he stood out.

There were always two AS dmen at the WCs so two had to standout but there is a big difference between being one of the two in a pool that includes the likes of John Mayasich, Harry Smith, Lou Nanne, Doug Roberts, Marshall Johnston and standing out in a pool of top 80 all time dmen.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
85,493
139,674
Bojangles Parking Lot
Flaman in the 1951 Playoffs

I know he was on the 1951 Leafs as a role player.

Noteworthy that the Barilko-Flaman pairing is listed as starting each of Toronto's playoff games until Flaman went down with a groin injury before Game 3 of the Finals. Flaman is listed as playing 9 of the Leafs' 11 games that playoff season, which would presumably be Games 3 and 4 of the Finals, but he is listed as a sub in those games. Perhaps he literally sat on the bench, I'm not sure, so keep that in mind for the rest of this analysis.

I'm not sure that "matched up" would be the right word, whether that was as clearly defined a strategy as it is today, but Flaman would certainly have had the toughest minutes against the top scoring lines led by Milt Schmidt and Maurice Richard as long as he and Barilko were playing top minutes.

Semifinals, Toronto vs Boston

In the semifinals, Schmidt was held to one meaningless secondary assist over six games -- coming off a season when he was 4th leaguewide in assists and points. Flaman and Barilko wrecked him with a double-team check in game 5 that injured his good knee and put him out for the final game, which Toronto won in a 6-0 laugher.

The Windsor Star 4/4/1951 said:
Smythe thought... his defense pair of Fernie Flaman and Bill Barilko were a major factor in keeping the Bruins off Turk Broda a good part of the way.

We know that Flaman was responsible for a goal against in the Bruins' win in Game 1, but he aquitted himself by scoring a key goal in Game 2:

The New York Times 4/2/1951 said:
Fernie Flaman's goal at 13:11 was a clean shot from 60 feet out that Gelineau never saw. The Bruins appeared to slump after that second tally.
...
[After Toronto scored again to make it 3-0] the Bruins were scarcely able to pass mid-ice. Most of the last period they were unable to get beyond their own blue line as Toronto's forwards staged a back-checking game that kept Boston off-balance.

The NYT described this as "hockey's roughest series", a bloody and brawl-filled battle. From what we have already seen about Flaman in prior posts, this was precisely the type of environment that played to his strengths. Since he avoided anything rough enough to draw a dumb penalty, one would have to imagine that the Bruins were making a strategic error by challenging the toughness of a team with Flaman in the lineup. Once Flaman knocked out Schmidt, the series was effectively over.

Stanley Cup Finals, Toronto vs Montreal

Again, it might not be totally accurate to think of "match ups" during this time period. But we have a pretty good sense that when Maurice Richard was on the ice, Flaman was usually there as well. Richard scored a goal in Game 1 and had an assist as well as the OT winner in Game 2. In Games 3 and 4, with Flaman out, he scored a goal and then had a goal-assist performance. In Game 5, with Flaman in, he scored a goal. Thomson/Morton apparently didn't contain him any better than Barilko-Flaman, though they didn't do a whole lot worse either.

In game 1 of the Finals, the papers noted that Barilko blocked a dangerous Richard drive shortly before the Leafs scored. That implies that Flaman was on the ice in those important first few minutes of OT. And we know that Flaman was on the ice when Barilko scored his famous Cup-winner, with Maurice Richard also on the ice and visible in the video. Flaman was injured during the second period of Game 2, so we can assume that he was not on the ice when Richard got by the defense in transition and scored in OT, and of course he was sidelined for Games 3 and 4.


The Windsor Daily Star 4/24/1951 said:
Barilko wasn't used in any ganging plays, yet he was on the ice for 17 of the 30 goals the Leafs scored in 11 cup games. He was on the Toronto defensive brigade for four goals against the Leafs.

Assuming the Barilko-Flaman pairing was constant, that would mean the stats above also apply to Flaman... making him a +13 in 11 games. Pretty impressive, even if he was the secondary player on the pairing. Without Barilko on the ice, the Leafs were +2. Of course, we need to adjust these numbers slightly to make up for the 2 1/2 games that Flaman missed, so he's probably more like a +10... still impressive.

None of this precludes Flaman from being described as a "role player". Every media source I could find singles out the same few players as the key contributors to that Cup run -- Turk Broda, Max Bentley, Ted Kennedy and Barilko. Not one mentions Flaman. However, it should also be kept in mind that Toronto gave a smothering defensive effort in each series, the sort of strategy that tends to obscure individual defensive performances. Nearly all the games were described as "tight-checking" and one was called "grim". Had any of their blueliners been a conspicuous weak link, both the Bruins and certainly Richard's Habs would have gotten better results from attacking that individual relentlessly. That didn't happen, which suggests that Flaman was playing a significant role in that defensive group, similar to Brewer and Stanley's position on later Leaf teams.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
Found this on Georges Boucher's leg injury:

Sturminator said:
Savard's injury was very early in his career. Boucher's was fairly late, correct?

Looks like it happened in February of 1924. From the Ottawa Citizen - February 4, 1924:

Boucher went out of commission in the second period, the result of a collision with Sprague Cleghorn. There was no blame attached to the latter, it appears to have been purely an accident but Boucher's knee was badly wrenched and he was unable to return to the game.

After this incident, we start seeing references to the injury (indicating that it was quite serious). From the Ottawa Citizen - January 9, 1925:

It was announced last night that Lionel Hitchman, substitute defenseman of the Ottawa N.H.L. hockey team, has been loaned to Boston for the remainder of the season. The deal is dependent on Hitchman coming to terms with manager Art Ross, of the Bruins, to whom he is to report on Saturday.

...

At the start of last season he alternated on the defense with Clancy, teaming up with Boucher. About the first of the year, he was playing regular and then when Boucher was forced out of action with a bad knee, he and Clancy formed the famous "kid defense", for a number of games.

From basically 1925 onwards, we see references to Boucher's "bad leg", and the frequent struggles he had with it. Here is a good example - from the Calgary Daily Herald - April 12, 1927:

George Boucher suffered a wrench of his bad leg near the close of the first period, but he started out again...

It should be noted that the timing of the injury matches the end of Boucher's peak quite closely. The injury occured late in the 1923-24 season, and Boucher's last peak season came in the next season 1924-25. He was 28 years old. It seems quite likely that Boucher was able to squeeze one more good season out of the knee before his leg problems forced him to slow down, and he spent the twilight of his career (he would play for seven more years) as a slow, physical, stay-at-home defenseman.

As I have found no mention of Boucher's skating (either positive or negative) before the occurence of the knee injury, I think it is safe to assume that he was an average skater through his years as a forward and then peak as an attacking defenseman, before succumbing to the realities of his injury, and changing his style of play. He is likely mentioned as "not the greatest skater" (which I believe comes from LOH) because he played as an immobile stay-at-home defenseman for seven full seasons, and that is the last image anyone had of him.

In an era where players generally had short careers, I find it quite impressive that Boucher was able to modify his game from a high-flying offensive defenseman to a stay-at-home guy and be good enough to stay around for 7 more years.

I'm strongly considering voting for him this round.

1923-24 is the season that Boucher finished 2nd in NHL scoring while playing defenseman all year (with the usual disclaimer that half the best players were still in the Western leagues).
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
85,493
139,674
Bojangles Parking Lot
These are videos from the late-50s Stanley Cup Finals. They show Fern Flaman, Allan Stanley, and Tom Johnson. Flaman is #14 in white, Stanley is #10 in white, and Johnson is #10 in "red".



Amateur film shot from ice level. Johnson is playing right defense with Doug Harvey (#2).

0:30 Johnson takes down a Wing beside the net, then does board work against 2 Wings.

1957


The first several goals are an exhibition of how the Habs shredded the d-pair of Leo Boivin (#20) and Bob Armstrong (#4).

1:05, you see Flaman getting beat up the ice by a streaking Beliveau.

1:15, Flaman lays a hit on Bernie Geoffrion (#5) as he releases the shot, apparently shaking him up a bit.

1:47, I'm pretty sure that Flaman is the Bruin involved. Tom Johnson is right next to him.

2:00, Flaman is the Bruin closest to the goal scorer.

1958


The first goal in the opening sequence shows both Flaman and Stanley playing very aggressively to block shots and passes. Simmons comes charging out of the net for some reason and leaves it open for an easy goal.

0:30, Doug Harvey turns on the jets and scores. You can see both Flaman and Stanley pretty much overpowered by his speed.

0:45, Flaman checks Beliveau completely out of the offensive zone.

1:25, that's Stanley that ends up on his knees in front of the net.

1960


0:15, Johnson is in front of the net on defense. A fuller version of this clip, showing the goal, is at 2:25.

3:00 is irrelevant to this thread, but you get to see Johnny Bower take a puck off the face in slow-mo :laugh:

4:05, you see Johnson trying to cut off a pass at the offensive blue line, then retreating back into position. *

5:00, Johnson is defending again. *

* look closely at these two highlights and you'll see that Johnson was either not a great backwards skater, or simply preferred to skate with his back to the opponent in transition.

5:35, Johnson doesn't mark a Leaf closely enough to prevent a goal.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
85,493
139,674
Bojangles Parking Lot
One more from the '57 Finals. Apparently a different reel.



0:35, Johnson gets beaten on a deke

1:35, Flaman makes a little fake at the point and then assists on the goal

I've watched a few others and the more I see him, the more it strikes me that Johnson really liked to skate forwards on defense. Maybe that was more common back then, maybe it was his personal style.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,222
7,388
Regina, SK
228 games to 449, right?

that 449 is a lot less, though I can't say for sure how many less. Overpass' post probably comes as close to the truth as anything.

And the 228 is mostly from a time of shorter seasons.

When this is all adjusted to reflect "seasons played as a defenseman" i am betting it is pretty much even. About 12-12 from what I can see.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
Vote 10 will begin now. Votes must be submitted between 11AM EST on Friday 1/27/12 and 2PM EST on Sunday 1/29/12. Votes received outside this time frame will not be accepted unless you make prior arrangements with me via PM. Voting will run until the deadline or until all voters have sent their vote in, whichever comes first. THESE DEADLINES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE SO PLEASE READ THROUGH THE ENTIRE THREAD.

Please note the slight change in the time frame. If all the votes are received by 2PM on Sunday, hopefully I can tally them and create a new round before leaving the house in the afternoon.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
Final preliminary arguments:

I think these two guys are must-adds this round:

Jan Suchy - I realize he never played a best-on-best against Canada, but any contemporary of Kharlamov and Mikhailov who is spoken of in the same breath as them by European observers should be on the list already. Right now, we only have 3 guys who peaked in Europe in our top 45 and only 1 who never played in the NHL at all. For a list that is supposed to represent all of hockey history, that seems a bit light. And if there is a case to be made that there are non-NHL Europeans left who are better (or even equal) to Suchy, I haven't seen it. Suchy and fellow Czech Pospisil have better records in the World Championships than any Soviet remaining, and Czechs seem to universally consider Suchy better.

Carl Brewer - Great peak and a key member of 3 Stanley Cups in a row - he was actually considered Toronto's #1 defenseman at the beginning of the 3 year run, a job that Tim Horton slowly took over. You can only imagine how much better his all-star record would be if he didn't lose 4 prime years due to a feud with his coach Punch Imlach. In modern times, he could have just asked for a trade and star for another team, and be done with it. At the height of the feud (before Brewer returned to the NHL), Imlach thought Brewer was one of the best two defensemen he had ever coached (along with Horton). Other defensemen Imlach coached included Allan Stanley and a past his prime but still very effective Marcel Pronovost.

I think these two guys should be added sooner, rather than later, and both have good cases for this round too:

Babe Siebert - Unlike Suchy, his non-peak years were spent largely at forward, but at this point, Siebert deserves to be added based off peak alone I think. The only remaining defenseman with 3 First Team All Stars, Siebert accomplished this against competition that included Eddie Shore, Earl Seibert, and Ebbie Goodfellow. He also has a Hart Trophy and a 3rd place finish. Considered one of of the strongest men of his era, Siebert also had great speed, though he had slowed by the time he became a permanent blueliner.

Georges Boucher - An offensive dynamo, Boucher was 1 point away from leading the NHL in points in 1923-24. Contemporaries didn't seem to think of him as highly as Eddie Gerard or Moose Johnson, which leads me to believe he was trading defense for offense (something he was able to do with one of the best defensive forwards of all time - Frank Nighbor - there to cover). Boucher was always a tough player and leader and should get extra credit for reinventing his game as a stay-at-home defensive defenseman after leg injuries took their toll. We are a little light on pre-consolidation guys (as shown by HO's graph), and Boucher seems like the best one left.

Edit: Others are encouraged to make posts like this too, of course.
 
Last edited:

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,612
4,992
Jan Suchy - I realize he never played against Canada

The 1972 NHL Team Canada you mean? Because Suchý was on the Czechoslovakian National Team when they played the CAHA Team Canada at the 1968 Olympics (2-3) and the 1969 WC (6-1 and 3-2).
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
The 1972 NHL Team Canada you mean? Because Suchý was on the Czechoslovakian National Team when they played the CAHA Team Canada at the 1968 Olympics (2-3) and the 1969 WC (6-1 and 3-2).

Thanks for the correction. Changed it to "he never played a best-on-best against Canada." It doesn't matter to me when he proved himself against the USSR which in term proved itself against Canada in the Summit Series, but for whatever reason it matters to some people.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,301
2,896
Of the early guys, I like Boucher over Cameron. Cameron might have been a star for a little longer, but Boucher was much more consistent within his prime.

A possible point against Boucher is that he really benefitted from playing with Nighbor as his centre and Gerard or Clancy as his D partner for most of his career. Cameron never had that support. But I haven't seen enough glowing reviews of Cameron as an overall player to put him over Boucher. The star quality and reputation just doesn't seem to have been there for someone with his stats.

Lester Patrick is a bit of a wild card for me and could make my top 5. Definitely more of a team man than Cameron.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad