Your personal historical hockey convictions/headcanons??

[Kinnikuniverse]

Nedved was brought in post 94 by Neil Smith because he was in desperate need of a natural center on line 2 Kovalev and Tikkanen were used in that spot the prior year, but if Doug Weight is there that negates the need.

Ah...still, wouldn't nedved be able to play on the wing?

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Ah...still, wouldn't nedved be able to play on the wing?

Point being, I dont know if he would have even been in the plans

 

[JackSlater]

I'd put Pronger in the group of top defencemen right below Orr, though near the bottom of that group. He isn't recognized as such due to some poorly timed injuries and being a dick that the media didn't really care for.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I'd put Pronger in the group of top defencemen right below Orr, though near the bottom of that group. He isn't recognized as such due to some poorly timed injuries and being a dick that the media didn't really care for.

Pronger always felt like he was just about to touch legendary status.

Follows up his Hart/Norris season by missing 31 games the next year.

Misses basically all of 2002-03.

If he plays another 12 games in 06-07 does he win another Norris?

If Edmonton is deeper he almost certainly wins the Cup and Smythe in 2006. Without the suspension he almost certainly wins the Smythe in 2007.

I think he's the defender with the biggest gap between Norris record and my eyes. And a lot of it comes down to injuries and suspensions.

 

[JackSlater]

Pronger always felt like he was just about to touch legendary status.

Follows up his Hart/Norris season by missing 31 games the next year.

Misses basically all of 2002-03.

If he plays another 12 games in 06-07 does he win another Norris?

If Edmonton is deeper he almost certainly wins the Cup and Smythe in 2006. Without the suspension he almost certainly wins the Smythe in 2007.

I think he's the defender with the biggest gap between Norris record and my eyes. And a lot of it comes down to injuries and suspensions.

There is a disconnect between Pronger as he was, and even how he was perceived, and how it will look to people looking back and analyzing his resume rather than the player that he was. For instance in comparison to Chara, pretty much everyone knew at the time that Pronger was a better player than Chara, but looking at resume bullet points makes it seem as though they were pretty much on the same level or that Chara was better.

My recollection was that Pronger was comfortably on his way to winning the Norris in 2001 and 2007 until he missed time. A 5-3 Norris split between Pronger and Lidstrom better reflects their play than does the 7-1 split that exists. Pronger was a bounce away from the 2006 Conn Smythe, should have gotten the 2007 Conn Smythe but likely lost it due to a suspension, and generally was the standout playoff performer in the latter half of the 2000s despite a lack of awards to signify that. In all star voting, Chara finished on the first team in 2004 while Pronger was one the second team because.... I don't really know. Doesn't make either all star team in 2006 for no good reason, though he did have a lull period in the middle of the season that kept him from being a legit contender for the Norris. 2008 he probably has at least a decent case, even on a mildly off year, to be better than Phaneuf, Campbell, and Chara. I'm not quite convinced that Green and especially Boyle were better than Pronger in 2009, or Green, Doughty, and even Lidstrom himself in 2010. Thinking about it right now, Pronger probably should have won the Norris that year. My only guess is that Pronger (and Potvin) missed out on bullet points (the odd trophy or all star placement) due to personality, even though at the time everyone was generally aware of how excellent he was.

 

[Big Phil]

Kind of annoys me that Wilson gets lumped in with Carlyle. Wilson was great his Norris year and deserved it. Carlyle robbed Potvin. Just a terrible choice.

He did have a great year in 1982, yes. 39 goals is just insane. That's going to get a lot of deserved miles no matter what.

Bolded is exactly what happened. People were upset that the Norris had evolved into a 'most points' award in the previous couple years, and then you had Paul Coffey come along who was even more all offense/no defense and there was a huge backlash against giving him the award.

But instead of giving it to the actual best defender - which would have been Howe/Potvin/Bourque in those years - they went for a huge overreaction to give it to the best all defense/no offense defender.

Your point about Washington's improvement is often cited. But what nobody seems to realize is that Philly improved even more defensively than Washington that season after the addition of Mark Howe - 73 fewer GA as opposed to 55.

Mark Howe was as good as Langway defensively, miles better offensively, and spearheaded a bigger defensive improvement for his new team. He should have been the 1983 Norris winner.

So what are we missing here? I agree with you, Langway's Norrises are always a good discussion and there are layers to this whole thing. If this happens in the 1940s and 1950s then you have a "Well, we had to be there at the time to notice" type of approach. But in the 1980s a lot of people were fans then. I guess for me one thing you can look at is that the Flyers were still not bad in 1982 before Howe. They had 87 points, were 7 games above .500. They did get better in 1983 with 106 but again, weren't bad prior to without Howe. Even in 1981 they had 97 points. Not so with Washington. They had 65 points in 1982, then the trade with Langway and they bump up to 94. The year after it was 101. This was the same franchise with arguable the worst season ever in 1975. They also never made the playoffs up until 1983 when Langway arrived. It was a good narrative and he did get a lot of credit for it.

But looking at the competition the one that does bother me the most is Howe in there. Bourque as well, but he did play in just 65 games. Maybe that factors in. Bourque in 1983 was good all around, but was he quite at the defensive level he would reach? I don't know. Howe pretty much played a full season though. Coffey had 96 points, but wasn't strong on the defensive end - at least not in the regular season - back then. Potvin missed 15 games or so. So I am thinking the idea that his team went bad to good was the winning narrative here.

Then in 1984, this one has a lot more unanswered questions. Coffey, Bourque and Potvin all had huge years. Langway had his usual defensive year with 33 points. Coffey racked up 126 points, 40 goals and +52. Bourque had 96 points, +51. Potvin had 85 points and +54. My goodness those are some huge numbers. Maybe the best season for a crop of defensemen in NHL history. And yet Langway wins it. You outscore the other guy by almost 100 points, you finish 2nd in scoring, and yet the guy with the wicked defense wins. Potvin was strong defensively, Bourque was strong defensively. Both were on good teams that did well because of them. I don't see it.

On Liut, yeah. It was just a total utter team collapse in the second half of the game and basically all of the goals were odd-man rushes or guys wide open in front of the net. It wasn't his fault, but scapegoating him was the easy way out.

On Blake, disagree. The guy I compared him to (Gonchar) played huge minutes in all situations, too ... but was correctly identified as a great offensive defender/ok defensive defender. Bryan McCabe played huge minutes in all situations. Dion Phaneuf played huge minutes in all situations.

As a Canuck fan, I loved having Blake on the ice against Naslund/Bertuzzi or whoever our top players at the time were, as opposed to Foote etc. He was too aggressive. He was constantly out of position going for huge ass checks. His defensive IQ was average. He was a good player ... but he was an offensive defender who threw big hits. He wasn't a shutdown D by any stretch of the imagination.

Numminen to me was a substantially better defensive defender - a legit #1 matchup guy - while being not much worse offensively.

I can see you don't like poor Rob Blake!

There was a goal where he laid a perfect hip check, his specialty, in the 2002 Olympics. It was against Germany, but you could argue that it took him out of position and led to the Germans' 1st goal of the game, which sort of got them back into things at 3-1.

Start at 8:15


I mean, just a lovely check, a thing of beauty and a thunderous check too. Totally knocks the guy out of position and down on the ground. I don't know if Blake sort of admires the hit, but he doesn't fall into the position he should be in at that time and the Germans end up scoring. So this might be an example of what you are talking about. Not everyone can perfect the thunderous hit like Scott Stevens though, where you hit the guy into next week and still remain in good position. Brendan Shanahan once said that Blake can somehow manage to throw you a hip check where his rear will end up in your chest. I think his hits generally had some value to them though.

 

[Big Phil]

Pronger always felt like he was just about to touch legendary status.

Follows up his Hart/Norris season by missing 31 games the next year.

Misses basically all of 2002-03.

If he plays another 12 games in 06-07 does he win another Norris?

If Edmonton is deeper he almost certainly wins the Cup and Smythe in 2006. Without the suspension he almost certainly wins the Smythe in 2007.

I think he's the defender with the biggest gap between Norris record and my eyes. And a lot of it comes down to injuries and suspensions.

Agree, he should have easily had the same sort of career that Larry Robinson had. I didn't mind his surliness with the media. There was a wittiness to how he did that. But hard to believe Pronger only had 4 years where he was an all-star on the 1st or 2nd team. That's hard to believe. I think in a full season he wins the Norris in 2001 and 2007. I don't know what they didn't like about him in 2006. Schneider is ahead of him? Redden? Come on.

 

[Voight]

Pronger always felt like he was just about to touch legendary status.

Follows up his Hart/Norris season by missing 31 games the next year.

Misses basically all of 2002-03.

If he plays another 12 games in 06-07 does he win another Norris?

If Edmonton is deeper he almost certainly wins the Cup and Smythe in 2006. Without the suspension he almost certainly wins the Smythe in 2007.

I think he's the defender with the biggest gap between Norris record and my eyes. And a lot of it comes down to injuries and suspensions.

Yea, when you get down to it, he was only ever actually nominated for the Norris 3x

 

[Neutrinos]

But he did spend those years there, and is remembered as the goalie that could shut the door when it mattered the most. Everyone knows that he had a habit of letting in some soft goals especially early in the game, but he knew how to win. A clutch goalie if there ever was one.

Name a Cup winning goalie who didn't "shut the door when it mattered the most" during their championship run

 

[quietbruinfan]

He did have a great year in 1982, yes. 39 goals is just insane. That's going to get a lot of deserved miles no matter what.



So what are we missing here? I agree with you, Langway's Norrises are always a good discussion and there are layers to this whole thing. If this happens in the 1940s and 1950s then you have a "Well, we had to be there at the time to notice" type of approach. But in the 1980s a lot of people were fans then. I guess for me one thing you can look at is that the Flyers were still not bad in 1982 before Howe. They had 87 points, were 7 games above .500. They did get better in 1983 with 106 but again, weren't bad prior to without Howe. Even in 1981 they had 97 points. Not so with Washington. They had 65 points in 1982, then the trade with Langway and they bump up to 94. The year after it was 101. This was the same franchise with arguable the worst season ever in 1975. They also never made the playoffs up until 1983 when Langway arrived. It was a good narrative and he did get a lot of credit for it.

But looking at the competition the one that does bother me the most is Howe in there. Bourque as well, but he did play in just 65 games. Maybe that factors in. Bourque in 1983 was good all around, but was he quite at the defensive level he would reach? I don't know. Howe pretty much played a full season though. Coffey had 96 points, but wasn't strong on the defensive end - at least not in the regular season - back then. Potvin missed 15 games or so. So I am thinking the idea that his team went bad to good was the winning narrative here.

Then in 1984, this one has a lot more unanswered questions. Coffey, Bourque and Potvin all had huge years. Langway had his usual defensive year with 33 points. Coffey racked up 126 points, 40 goals and +52. Bourque had 96 points, +51. Potvin had 85 points and +54. My goodness those are some huge numbers. Maybe the best season for a crop of defensemen in NHL history. And yet Langway wins it. You outscore the other guy by almost 100 points, you finish 2nd in scoring, and yet the guy with the wicked defense wins. Potvin was strong defensively, Bourque was strong defensively. Both were on good teams that did well because of them. I don't see it.



I can see you don't like poor Rob Blake!

There was a goal where he laid a perfect hip check, his specialty, in the 2002 Olympics. It was against Germany, but you could argue that it took him out of position and led to the Germans' 1st goal of the game, which sort of got them back into things at 3-1.

Start at 8:15


I mean, just a lovely check, a thing of beauty and a thunderous check too. Totally knocks the guy out of position and down on the ground. I don't know if Blake sort of admires the hit, but he doesn't fall into the position he should be in at that time and the Germans end up scoring. So this might be an example of what you are talking about. Not everyone can perfect the thunderous hit like Scott Stevens though, where you hit the guy into next week and still remain in good position. Brendan Shanahan once said that Blake can somehow manage to throw you a hip check where his rear will end up in your chest. I think his hits generally had some value to them though.

You are dead on with your Langway changed the team narrative. It was quite a difference between the bottom feeder Caps and the Langway Caps. But it did not merit two Norris trophy, especially the second one as you say. Bourque should have at least one more Norris and a Hart, but starting in year three of his career, he became extraordinarily efficient but not flashy.

 

[overpass]

Bolded is exactly what happened. People were upset that the Norris had evolved into a 'most points' award in the previous couple years, and then you had Paul Coffey come along who was even more all offense/no defense and there was a huge backlash against giving him the award.

But instead of giving it to the actual best defender - which would have been Howe/Potvin/Bourque in those years - they went for a huge overreaction to give it to the best all defense/no offense defender.

Your point about Washington's improvement is often cited. But what nobody seems to realize is that Philly improved even more defensively than Washington that season after the addition of Mark Howe - 73 fewer GA as opposed to 55.

Mark Howe was as good as Langway defensively, miles better offensively, and spearheaded a bigger defensive improvement for his new team. He should have been the 1983 Norris winner.

I thought I liked Mark Howe’s game as much as anyone here but I don’t know about that. He was a very smart and instinctive player with all the skills, but it wasn’t until he arrived in Philly that he received any coaching on how to play defence (from Ed van Impe). Langway had just graduated from the Montreal University for Defencemen and Howe was completely self taught before that season. He was still playing forward on the PK, where he played really well and the team had good results, but you wouldn’t expect that if he was the best defensive D in the league.

I would also have voted him 1st for Norris in 82-83, though.

To me, Langway’s Norris wins are like Steve Nash’s MVPs in the NBA. Year one, a one-way player who is maybe the best in the league in that dimension leads an incredible team turnaround and wins the award. Year two, he’s even better than his last award-winning season so you almost have to give him the award again.

 

[Moose Head]

You are dead on with your Langway changed the team narrative. It was quite a difference between the bottom feeder Caps and the Langway Caps. But it did not merit two Norris trophy, especially the second one as you say. Bourque should have at least one more Norris and a Hart, but starting in year three of his career, he became extraordinarily efficient but not flashy.

I agree with Bourque in 84. That said, I think Stevens should have won over Bourque in 94. Personal preference I guess but damn, Stevens was the whole package in 94. Things evened out for Ray imo

 

[quietbruinfan]

I agree with Bourque in 84. That said, I think Stevens should have won over Bourque in 94. Personal preference I guess but damn, Stevens was the whole package in 94. Things evened out for Ray imo

Yeah 94 was his only borderline Norris. He absolutely should have won the Hart though. There was some reverse east coast bias there. I actually think he had an argument for Norris his rookie year, but they gave him 1st all-star instead. lol

 

[whcanuck]

If the Canucks hadn’t given up Martin Havlat’s tying goal to the Hawks in game 4 of the 2009 playoffs, they win that series. That year I actually felt like the Canucks were better than Chicago, but imploded in game 5 & 6 after the crushing OT loss in game 4.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Owen Nolan would be in the Hall of Fame if the Avs hadn't traded him to San Jose

What a kick in the teeth that must've been for him. Drafted 1st overall in '90, he's one of the first foundational pieces of their rebuild, goes through the growing pains that rebuilding teams experience, and just as the team is ready to emerge from that rebuild as one of the league's top contenders, BOOM! He's traded 9 games into the '95 season to the goddamn San Jose Sharks, a team that will win just 20 games

8 months after being dealt, his former teammates were hoisting the Cup

i’ll have to look for it but recently, in one of those roy threads, i found a newspaper quote from 1996 where nolan was described as expendable because he “wasn’t interested in being as good as he can be” or something to that effect

i have no memory of anyone saying this in his quebec days but he did certainly suck in the playoffs more often than not in SJ.

found it—

another detail about the potential roy for nolan and fiset deal —

“Ozolinsh or any other San Jose Shark was available after that team got off to the worst start in the league this season. Lacroix picked him up for Owen Nolan, a player Lacroix and many others in the NHL felt didn't want to be a prime-time player.”

link


not something i remember anyone saying about young nolan. but man he was a 23 year old entering his sixth season with two top tens in goals under his belt and had averaged 44 goals/81 pts per 80 over the previous four years.

i actually remember him as caring a little too much, and that causing the yips come playoff time.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

Damn, they really dropped the ball for that one cup whe it could have been more...

Even with the roster you're proposing there was no way the Rangers sniff a cup post-1994. All of Dallas, Detroit, Colorado and New Jersey were better on any given day. They would have occupied that 5th to 8th best team slot from 1995 to the early 00s that teams like Philly, Toronto, St. Louis and Ottawa seemed to occupy then.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Even with the roster you're proposing there was no way the Rangers sniff a cup post-1994. All of Dallas, Detroit, Colorado and New Jersey were better on any given day. They would have occupied that 5th to 8th best team slot from 1995 to the early 00s that teams like Philly, Toronto, St. Louis and Ottawa seemed to occupy then.

See but youre implying that its the Detroit and Dallas from the irl time line. In this time line Detroit potenially jumps on Keenan in 93 seeing how the Rangers already have a cup in 92 and aren't in desperation mode like irl. Which asks the question where does Bowman go??? If Bowman say goes to St.Louis then Shanahan and Hull never leave which means Detroit and Dallas potentially never win their cups (Hull and Shanahan were huge catalysts in both).

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

See but youre implying that its the Detroit and Dallas from the irl time line. In this time line Detroit potenially jumps on Keenan in 93 seeing how the Rangers already have a cup in 92 and aren't in desperation mode like irl. Which asks the question where does Bowman go??? If Bowman say goes to St.Louis then Shanahan and Hull never leave which means Detroit and Dallas potentially never win their cups (Hull and Shanahan were huge catalysts in both).

Yzerman and Keenan together in Detroit would not happen. They hated each other, and Yzerman was like a son to the Ilitch family. There was no way that Detroit would seriously have gone after him.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Yzerman and Keenan together in Detroit would not happen. They hated each other, and Yzerman was like a son to the Ilitch family. There was no way that Detroit would seriously have gone after him.

Look in the Keenan to Detroit thread. He was plan a for them when they let Bryan Murray go. Only reason they didn't get him was the Rangers were out of the playoffs in 1993 and hired him as soon as their season ended.

 

[MadLuke]

But he did spend those years there, and is remembered as the goalie that could shut the door when it mattered the most. Everyone knows that he had a habit of letting in some soft goals especially early in the game, but he knew how to win. A clutch goalie if there ever was one.

I think one issue is that the first goal become so important has scoring got low that this distinction could disappear, one need to go back in a 5 goal a game team to get back to an idea that a first period first goal in a playoff game could not count has one of the most mattering moment ever of the season.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Heres my biggest one and this would have been huge. In 1980 the Oilers and Leafs almost swapped cities. Ballard wanted out of Toronto in the worst way and figured he wouldn't get bothered in Edmonton as much. So lets say it happens. Lets say the 79-80 Oilers move to Toronto and assume the Leafs name and history while the 79-80 Leafs move to Edmonton and become NHL the expansion Edmonton Oilers. You figure in 79-80 everything sort of remains the same. The 2 teams in irl went out in round 1. In 80-81 sort of the same thing happens similar records but irl the Oilers swept the Habs in round 1, in this scenario its the hated Leafs sweeping the Habs, how would things have taken shape in Montreal after a huge loss to a hated rival. IRL they lose to the Islanders which happens here too

81-82 is where it gets really interesting too now with divisional play for the playoffs the Leafs (irl Oilers) are in the Norris division now. This means they don't see the Kings in round 1. Instead the see the Blues which means they potentially could get to the finals a year early vs the Islanders where imo they probably lose. With the loss under their belts do they potentially dethrone the Isles a year early in 83? And do those same Isles finally tail off in 84 leaving these Leafs a different easier opponent in 84, Do they beat Philly in 85? ( I think they do), which brings us to 86, the irl series with Calgary was in the division finals, in this timeline that couldn't happen until the conference finals in this timeline. Do the Flames still pull the upset or do the Leafs meet the irl Habs here with a chance at 4 in a row? Could they have potentially won 6 in a row (87 and 88).

Also Sather and Pocklington have both said had they been in a bigger city they could have kept it together. This means Gretzky is a leaf for life probably. The sun belt expansion isnt as wide spread. The Leafs continue to be a force till at least 1996, the ACC goes up earlier too. But is the growth of the sport as a whole stunted??

 

[hacksaw7]

Scotty Bowman was a great coach. But he was also quite fortunate and in the right place at the right time quite often. He's not the greatest NHL coach of all time...I'd rank Arbour over Bowman. Maybe even Pat Burns as well. Some coaches just never ended up with teams as talented as Scotty's, but consistently got more than expected with what they were given. Bowman, very often just had either the undisputed best team in the league, or a roster that would rank top 3 or top 5. Some coaches never had that, and still guided teams to playoff upsets, finals, even Cups.

He also had some real awful blemishes that get swept under the rug. 1993 and 1994, first to the Isles (Arbour) and then with the up and coming powerhouse Wings to SJ in 1994. Then in 1995 he gets Det to a final only to be upset (and handled quite easily) by NJ...and then bounced by Colorado the next year after just escaping by the skin of their teeth vs St. Louis.

His 7 dissapointing years in Buffalo. 1984 being swept out by the Nords. An awful Game 5 choke to the Nords in 1985. Even as late as 2001 a bad upset loss to the LA Kings by Bowmans Wings.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Pronger was the best player in the world from 2006-2010.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Pronger was the best player in the world from 2006-2010.

Idk about that, but I'd say from 2001-to say 2006 that you could argue that Sakic may have been

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

The one hill I always die on is that Iginla rejecting the agreed-upon trade to Boston and going to Pittsburgh cost them the 2013 cup and expedited the blowing up of that core and Chiarelli's firing.

Bruins made it to game 6 of the cup final losing 3 1-goal games without Iggy, despite the fact that Jaromir Jagr (who Chiarelli scrambled to acquire after Iggy invoked his NTC) gave the Bruins nearly nothing - no goals in 22 postseason games, the most snakebit player I've ever seen - a few big assists though, but no doubt Iggy would've given more, and Nathan Horton was playing on a separated shoulder - a shoulder he separated in a late-season game against Pittsburgh during a fight with - wait for it - Jarome Iginla.

Then the following summer they did sign Iginla as a UFA - but leveraged everything into it, giving him league minimum base and incentives. He scored 30 goals so those incentives were hit and they went way over the cap and were penalized on the 2014-15 cap, so they couldn't bring him back and had to trade away Boychuk as well to be cap compliant, and the team fell apart from there.

My headcanon? If Iginla takes the Boston trade at the 2013 deadline for Bartkowski, Khokhlachev, and a 1st, Boston wins the cup in 6 games. Everyone is happy with the result and Seguin isn't scapegoated so they don't make the Loui Eriksson trade (Horton still walks after they keep Seguin, obviously). Iginla finds himself comfortable in Boston and wants to extend on a multiyear deal, they move some other pieces (Peverly, Kelly, McQuaid) to make it all fit under the cap. By butterfly effect, Dennis Seidenberg doesn't tear his ACL in 2013-14, he's still effective and there for the playoffs, Bruins win the 2014 cup as well.

1 fact thats escaped me is if the Bruins do indeed win in 14 that means no Pasternak unless they trade up to get him somehow that would have meant the Islanders who owned the Rangers pick which became Tampa's pick after the MSL deal would have drafted him. If you have a 1-2 punch with Tavares and Pasternak I wonder if Tavares ever leaves. Or I wonder if Tampa makes the trade with NYI at all knowing Pasternak is there for the taking.