1980's—Was talent really at its weakest?

[Schmee]

I know that I've heard this a lot, that the 1980's NHL was the weakest era for talent. But is this really the case? WHA folded in 1979, making its best players available to the NHL. I wonder if our fascination with's superteams (Islanders and Oilers) means the rest of the talent simply doesn't make a strong enough impression on us. Perhaps the sheer dominance of 99 and 66 also cause us to slight some other great talents whom otherwise would be remembered much more highly.

Click to read more...

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

Don't let the History of Hockey folks see this. They'll have their torches and pitchforks at the ready!

 

[Rebels57]

I know that I've heard this a lot, that the 1980's NHL was the weakest era for talent. But is this really the case? WHA folded in 1979, making its best players available to the NHL. I wonder if our fascination with's superteams (Islanders and Oilers) means the rest of the talent simply doesn't make a strong enough impression on us. Perhaps the sheer dominance of 99 and 66 also cause us to slight some other great talents whom otherwise would be remembered much more highly.

The Flyers teams in the 80s were f***ing awesome. Just happened to run into dynasties in the Finals on 3 separate occasions (80, 85, 87) and lose their Vezina winning goalie in a car accident in his prime (85).

There was a ton of talent in the 80s.

 

[blankall]

When people are talking about talent begin weak in the 1980s, they are referring to the bottom tend. The league was expanding and there were simply a lot of bottom 6 forwards, defencemen, and even goalies who did not have the skill, training, or talent of professional athletes. It made it easier for the truly skilled guys to inflate their numbers.

 

[BladeRunner66]

Ahem...

 

[Silky mitts]

Imagine the effect on the talent pool if 90% of the non North Americans got snapped away. And this was after adding 15 teams in 12 years so there were 3.5 times as many NHL spots available without the expanded talent pool. 1968-1988 5 teams won the Cup because most of the league were the Washington Generals.

 

[Schmee]

Imagine the effect on the talent pool if 90% of the non North Americans got snapped away. And this was after adding 15 teams in 12 years so there were 3.5 times as many NHL spots available without the expanded talent pool. 1968-1988 5 teams won the Cup because most of the league were the Washington Generals.

It's not like expansion began in the 80's. The league had already had 13 seasons of it, as well as having the WHA to compete with. It seems to me we think so poorly of 1980's teams largely because of the Islanders and Oilers being so stacked.

 

[MessierII]

70’s was the weakest. Scouting hadn’t expanded to Europe yet and you had the WHA poaching players. 80’s was an influx of talent after the WHA folded and teams began seriously scouting Europe.

 

[oXo Cube]

NHL hockey was at its weakest in the early 40's for reasons I presume don't require explanation.

After that would be the late 60's/early 70's due to rapid expansion(league doubled in size) as well as the rise of the WHA taking some of the talent.

Periods where NHL hockey was definitely not at it's weakest include the 80's and the 50's. Especially the latter.

 

[GodEmperor]

Less people playing Hockey=less talent.

We are in the period of greatest talent.

 

[oXo Cube]

Don't let the History of Hockey folks see this. They'll have their torches and pitchforks at the ready!

I think the HoH people would be just fine with this thread. It's the "any hockey that was played before 1995 sucks" crowd that will come in here screaming.

 

[DANOZ28]

i think today there are too many teams and the talent is spread too thin resulting in top players not having enough surrounding talent to boost their #'s. see gretzky.

 

[Bank Shot]

I think the HoH people would be just fine with this thread. It's the "any hockey that was played before 1995 sucks" crowd that will come in here screaming.

I think the crop of players drafted from around 94-2002 was pretty bad.

Just before that you had guys like Lindros, Forsberg, Jagr, Sakic, Pronger, Lidstrom, Bure coming through the draft.

The 94-2002 produced good players like Thornton, Iginla, Kovalchuk, Chara, but no legends.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I think the HoH people would be just fine with this thread. It's the "any hockey that was played before 1995 sucks" crowd that will come in here screaming.

Lol. From just a couple hours ago:

I do consider the '70's and '80's to be the richest when it comes to individual talent in the NHL (which is why players like Perreault, Hawerchuk and Denis Savard made my list). Perhaps that was the result of the final graduating classes of players who were brought up with far more freedom to be creative rather than brought up to follow systems. Also, as we got into the 90's and 2000's, size was overemphasized, and the clutching and grabbing also hurt the skill players.

 

[oXo Cube]

I think the crop of players drafted from around 94-2002 was pretty bad.

Just before that you had guys like Lindros, Forsberg, Jagr, Sakic, Pronger, Lidstrom, Bure coming through the draft.

The 94-2002 produced good players like Thornton, Iginla, Kovalchuk, Chara, but no legends.

It's definitely a weaker era for top end talent, culminating in some(relatively) weaker players winning major awards in the seasons leading up to the lockout.

Lol. From just a couple hours ago:

Not sure if you are just agreeing with me or not, but why would that guy get upset about this thread? I can only assume he would agree with the premise. Did you even read the OP?

 

[blood gin]

I think the crop of players drafted from around 94-2002 was pretty bad.

Just before that you had guys like Lindros, Forsberg, Jagr, Sakic, Pronger, Lidstrom, Bure coming through the draft.

The 94-2002 produced good players like Thornton, Iginla, Kovalchuk, Chara, but no legends.

I would tend to agree. The game was evolving to be less about speed and skill at that point and more physicality, obstruction, grinding ice rugby of sorts. So many guys back then were on NHL rosters simply because they were big. Everybody wanted the next Lindros type. Clubs were drafting size and hoping hands and skating would come later

 

[oXo Cube]

I would tend to agree. The game was evolving to be less about speed and skill at that point and more physicality, obstruction, grinding ice rugby of sorts. So many guys back then were on NHL rosters simply because they were big. Everybody wanted the next Lindros type. Clubs were drafting size and hoping hands and skating would come later

Coaches at lower levels(at least in North America) stifling talent while they favored size and taught the clutch and grab game as well.

It's no surprise that the best players produced in this period were all huge power forwards.

 

[CartographerNo611]

Honestly outside of players across the board taking training off the ice much more serious it’s pretty much a wash, to many differences to really compare since everybody would have to use different talents if interested into a different era. I mean a slow as nails 40 year old Jagr was putting up 50 point seasons a few years ago. He was playing when Mario was putting up insane numbers, today’s game is not heads over shoulders more talented like a lot millenials want so hard to believe.

Today’s equipment is far superior to 80s which enhances a lot of scrubs to make them seem better than what they are, especially given how over coached today’s game is.

1. Skates were completely different and had little ankle support making players skate more upright. A lot of careers would be different if players were inserted back then. EK would be on IR more with his weak ankles.

2. Today’s bullet proof armor makes blocking shots acceptable. Protection in the 80s was pretty much a thick leather jacket. Take away blocking shots today, Crosby suddenly becomes a 140 point player and a lot of defenseman get exposed since forwards won’t be blocking shots up high.

3. Sticks today are insanely whippy inflating shot speeds. 80’s had wood sticks that were much harder to whip. You actually needed upper body muscle to get the force. More muscle means slower skating. There is a reason the slap shit was widely used back then.

4. Goalies, their equipment debates everyone knows. But the butterfly was designed for big goalies and big equipment. You had to be way more twitchy and athletic in the 80s since you pretty much had a pillow cushion. Bishop would of never won a vezina without the butterfly and big equipment.

5. Fighting, you needed to fight why? Get whacked with a stick on the shin in today’s equipment compared to 80s equipment and 99% of user today would want to knock someone’s face in after getting some whacks to the legs. Why have your star players fight when you can get a less talented player to fight instead? Now you know why the enforcer came about and why it’s not needed currently. Bulletproof equipment...

Also there is about 3 billion more people in today’s world compared to the 80s. Just a little difference, only 10 USA’s.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Don't forget advances in sports medicine and nutrition. Also no one seems to talk about the importance of video review and its advancements which impact not only how teams prepare for each other, but also being able to see prospects without having to go there.

 

[streitz]

It was at it's highest, which is why so many offensive stars shined.


Players today have trouble handling the puck for more then 2-3 seconds for the most part, have trouble looking over their shoulder when going into a corner. Have trouble using the backhand.



Personally I think talent in the current era is at an all time low. Maybe scoring will pick up with some nice new stars coming into their own.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1980s saw the arrival of the first generation of goalies raised under the two goalie system introduced into youth hockey in the mid 1960s. Since youth hockey schedules did not increase the result produced NHL goalies that were far from ready.

At the same time you saw the mass arrival of Bobby Orr template defencemen minus the skating. Previously, offence was generated mainly by the center. In the 1980s you started seeing offence generated thru the line-up.

The two extremes, immature goaltending and line-up generated offence produced high scorng until various adjustments took place.

 

[Sentinel]

Less people playing Hockey=less talent.

We are in the period of greatest talent.

Quantity = / = quality.
We are pretty frigging far from the era of greatest talent.

 

[Sentinel]

I think the crop of players drafted from around 94-2002 was pretty bad.

Just before that you had guys like Lindros, Forsberg, Jagr, Sakic, Pronger, Lidstrom, Bure coming through the draft.

The 94-2002 produced good players like Thornton, Iginla, Kovalchuk, Chara, but no legends.

Datsyuk and Zetterberg somehow skipped your list.

 

[brachyrynchos]

It was at it's highest, which is why so many offensive stars shined.


.

The coaches didn't over-coach either, it was simple...play to outscore the other team, take chances. Creativity and skill was allowed to shine, that philosophy would do wonders for today's game instead of the emphasis on prevention and possession. The same way today's coaching style would've stifled the '80's.

 

[Shaman464]

I would argue the early to mid 80s was a reaction to the 70s expansion era. That talent started to get watered down. Players that normally were bottom or middle 6 before hand were top 6 players. Players that wouldn't have made the league did. There was a greater separation between the top players and the bottom players after the expansion, and it took about 15 years for the players and the league to catch up and for the league to start really developing players, not just using the top 100 players or so and the rest never making the league.