70s Habs and 90s Bulls Comparisons

CharlestownChiefsESC

Registered User
Sep 17, 2008
1,218
416
Laurence Harbor NJ
Warning long post here.I finally finished the last dance last night and eventhough I'm not a basketball fan I definitely enjoyed it. Now a few weeks ago Kevin Lowe was interviewed by a Canadian news outlet asking could they do a 10 part doc on Gretzky the 80s Oilers. Lowe even said it would be 5 parts and that Gretzky's personality was totally different than Jordan's which is also true. But it got me thinking is there a hockey equivalent to those Bulls and well yes there is that team is the 70s Montreal Canadiens.
Like the 90s Bulls the Habs won 6 cups in the 70s. Unlike them they didn't have a double 3peat. They won 2 in 3 years to start and then 4 in a row to close the decade. Like the rivals the Knicks,Pacers, and Jazz were to the Bulls the Flyers,Islanders, and Bruins were to the Habs.
What Phil Jackson was to the Bulls, Scotty Bowman was to the Habs he was a coach that won and won often but like Jackson in 97-98 Bowman in 78-79 wanted out. He couldn't get along with the gm and thought he should get total control. Also like Jackson Bowman went elsewhere to coach and won.
The Michael Jordan role was definitely played by Ken Dryden. The 90s Bulls went as far as Jordan could take them just like the 70s Habs went as far as Dryden could. Both sat out a year too, as Dryden wanted to do a law internship in 73-74. Also like Mike in 97-98 Dryden in 78-79 retired on top and refused to go on if Bowman wasn't coach
The underappreciated Pippen role was definitely Guy Lafleur. Lafleur did so much for that team and got treated like garbage. Unlike Pippen though when Lafleur wanted out in the 80s they forced him to retire instead of trading him.
The Rodman role id say was shared by 3 people. The defensive specialist was definitely Bob Gainey, but also Larry Robinson. Rinbinson's off ice hobbies of playing polo and fixing and racing cars also didn't please management too much. The aspect of coming from another team to help was definitely Frank Mahovolich however he was only there for the first 2 championships but gone for the 4 peat.
And well like the Bulls the Habs were never dominant again again however the Habs did win 2 more cups over the next 15 years.
Thoughts???
 
  • Like
Reactions: cole von cole

Bluesguru

Registered User
Aug 10, 2014
1,957
823
St. Louis
2 dynasty’s but also 2 different sports. Hockey is more of a team driven sport. Basketball is spearheaded by 1 or 2 phenomenal superstars. It’s a game where your starters are out there on the field 60% or more of the time. And your superstars 80% or more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jets4Life

Dread Clawz

LAWSonic Boom
Nov 25, 2006
27,299
8,648
Pennsylvania
I think the 1956-60 Habs were better. The only team to ever win 5 straight, and they almost won another one in 61. M.Richard, H. Richard, Harvey, Plante, Geoffrion, Moore, Beliveau....that team was just chock full of legends. And maybe the deepest team in nhl history. The 70's Habs were good, but not on that level.
 

CharlestownChiefsESC

Registered User
Sep 17, 2008
1,218
416
Laurence Harbor NJ
I think the 1956-60 Habs were better. The only team to ever win 5 straight, and they almost won another one in 61. M.Richard, H. Richard, Harvey, Plante, Geoffrion, Moore, Beliveau....that team was just chock full of legends. And maybe the deepest team in nhl history. The 70's Habs were good, but not on that level.

Was more or less comparing situations at the time
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,038
12,646
It's not a bad comparison, especially the second set of championship winning Bulls teams. I think that Jackson is more comparable to Toe Blake given his seasons:championships ratio and that he coached two dynasty type teams, but Bowman suits decently. I don't really like the Dryden/Jordan comparison outside of the both taking time off during the team's run and their departure marking the end of the dynasty. Both teams had ferocious defences with Montreal's big three on defence, plus Lemaire, plus high end role players and with Pippen/Jordan/Rodman/Harper on Chicago. Both teams had smartly selected role players who excelled in very specific roles. Jordan and Lafleur are the soloists on offence. It's a bit insulting to consider Pollock and Krause in the same vein though, and I'm more forgiving of Krause than most are.

It's difficult to compare basketball and hockey teams given the disparity in roster size and the much larger impact that a basketball player can have on a game than any hockey player can. Both teams had a legendary scorer with arguably the greatest coach ever in the sport and elite defences and role players. It's not that far off overall.
 

JianYang

Registered User
Sep 29, 2017
17,683
15,970
There is one big difference. Those bulls teams had the greatest basketball player ever, who was a global phenom.

The 70s habs never had the greatest hockey player ever, and the greatest hockey player would not be a global phenom regardless.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,903
136,976
Bojangles Parking Lot
There is one big difference. Those bulls teams had the greatest basketball player ever, who was a global phenom.

The 70s habs never had the greatest hockey player ever, and the greatest hockey player would not be a global phenom regardless.

I think the biggest differences are:

1) Chicago had a better player than anyone on Montreal. The only NHL players who compare to Jordan are Gretzky and maybe Orr, who are clearly on a different tier than Lafleur or Dryen. You could make an argument that Montreal had the best player in the league at the time, but that argument would have to recognize that it was a weak period where the best player in the world was retired.

2) On the other hand, Chicago was stacked at the top of the lineup but not that deep. Jordan, obviously the best player in the league. Pippen... a star but more of the second tier. Rodman was a very good role player but was very much a piece you brought in to complement true stars. Beyond that you had guys like Kerr and Kucoc. Capable depth players, but niche players even on a weaker team.

Whereas the Habs had three guys (Lemaire/Dryden/Robinson) in the Jordan role of "best player at his position", several guys (Shutt/Lemaire/Cournoyer/Savard/Lapointe) in the Pippen role of "guy who would normally be in a starring role", and a couple more (Gainey/Jarvis) in the Rodman role of "elite niche player who finishes off a dynasty roster". And instead of a bunch of forgettable role players and nobodies down the lineup, they still had even more high-end talent filling out the roster (Houle/Tremblay/Risebrough/Mahovlich/Mondou).

It's possible to frame that as simply the difference between basketball and hockey -- that you need 3-4 times as many good players to be effective. In any case, I think you look at the Bulls and see a little higher of a top tier with a little less depth, and vice versa for the Habs. Otherwise, yes it is a very close comparison, and probably each league's best example of a perfectly built and fully actualized roster including coaching.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,141
Well, you can definitely make the comparison. Both were great in their own right. I think people forget that it wasn't just chopped liver for the Bulls to win every year.

They had some ease in the 1991 playoffs, 1992 was a little more tight with them needing to knock the Knicks off in Game 7. 1993 they were down 2-0 in the series against the Knicks. 1996 was more or less a cakewalk, but the 1997 final was tight with Utah going 6 close games and in 1998 they needed 7 games to knock off Indiana and played another rather close 6 game series in the final vs. Utah.

The Bulls were on the verge of being eliminated more than the Habs of the 1970s who just have the one time in 1979 with Boston that gave them trouble that whole dynasty. You could say it is because the Bulls had better competition, and that might be true.

Either way, both teams are widely considered to have the best single season in their sport. Bulls in 1996, Habs in 1977. Bulls in 1997 were hardly worse and the Habs in 1976 and 1978 were barely worse either. I guess you have to ask what is better? Three in a row twice or 4 in a row? Probably the former, but there is that two year gap.

I think though, that Bulls team came and went with Jordan though, while the Habs as good as Lafleur was, were more a team and probably had more depth, although hockey is generally more of a team game.
 

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,261
16,507
Mulberry Street
Well, you can definitely make the comparison. Both were great in their own right. I think people forget that it wasn't just chopped liver for the Bulls to win every year.

They had some ease in the 1991 playoffs, 1992 was a little more tight with them needing to knock the Knicks off in Game 7. 1993 they were down 2-0 in the series against the Knicks. 1996 was more or less a cakewalk, but the 1997 final was tight with Utah going 6 close games and in 1998 they needed 7 games to knock off Indiana and played another rather close 6 game series in the final vs. Utah.

The Bulls were on the verge of being eliminated more than the Habs of the 1970s who just have the one time in 1979 with Boston that gave them trouble that whole dynasty. You could say it is because the Bulls had better competition, and that might be true.

Either way, both teams are widely considered to have the best single season in their sport. Bulls in 1996, Habs in 1977. Bulls in 1997 were hardly worse and the Habs in 1976 and 1978 were barely worse either. I guess you have to ask what is better? Three in a row twice or 4 in a row? Probably the former, but there is that two year gap.

I think though, that Bulls team came and went with Jordan though, while the Habs as good as Lafleur was, were more a team and probably had more depth, although hockey is generally more of a team game.

I wouldn't call 1996 a cakewalk. Sonics had a very good team, including Gary Payton who is all time great PG who also won DPOY that year.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,653
51,099
I'm really fascinated by the internal forces that come to dominant late in a dynasty that seems to have been a theme with the Bulls and Canadiens. The success fatigue that seems to set in on some existential level, the diminishing returns in happiness, the clashes in vision, the failure of the succession plan, the slow decline and organizational rot. The transition of the Pollock to Grundman era really reminded me of the Krause vs. Krause Phase II transition, the Bownman/Jackson ouster.
 

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,506
3,055
The Maritimes
I'm really fascinated by the internal forces that come to dominant late in a dynasty that seems to have been a theme with the Bulls and Canadiens. The success fatigue that seems to set in on some existential level, the diminishing returns in happiness, the clashes in vision, the failure of the succession plan, the slow decline and organizational rot. The transition of the Pollock to Grundman era really reminded me of the Krause vs. Krause Phase II transition, the Bownman/Jackson ouster.
Yes. Ken Dryden's The Game is significantly about the '78 - '79 season, the Habs final Cup of the dynasty, and he discusses a lot of these things.

He makes it clear he believed that if they could pull it off in the '79 playoffs, then that would be the end of it.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,653
51,099
Yes. Ken Dryden's The Game is significantly about the '78 - '79 season, the Habs final Cup of the dynasty, and he discusses a lot of these things.

He makes it clear he believed that if they could pull it off in the '79 playoffs, then that would be the end of it.

Sometimes makes me think the one off championships are sweeter than the dynasties.
 

tinyzombies

Registered User
Dec 24, 2002
16,824
2,337
Montreal, QC, Canada
There are a few similarities.

Lafleur was the best player in the world for 4-5 years. When the Canadiens needed a big goal, that's where the puck went, he was the finisher same as MJ. Creative with the puck and could go around players easily. A national media sensation. That's where the similarities end because Lafleur wasn't expected to play defense.

Lemaire was his Pippen in the sense that he could carry the puck and make plays. He also covered up for Lafleur defensively, which MJ obviously didn't need. Also, imagine Jordan with a massive upgrade at center (Larry Robinson). Serge Savard and Bob Gainey could be Rodman in that they stifled plays and got the puck back.

Bowman couldn't be more different from Phil Jackson. He messed with player's heads so they wouldn't get too comfortable. Phil was a mystic/shrink player's coach.

Both teams played at shrines (tho Chicago Stadium more so for the building itself, which was breathtaking, before MJ came along. I was lucky to attend one Blackhawks game. Could have seen MJ but the girl I was with didn't want to go.). The Forum was drenched in winning- I went to many games there in the late 70s thru 96.
 
Last edited:

Mickey Marner

Registered User
Jul 9, 2014
19,215
20,742
Dystopia
I don't really see it, they certainly aren't anywhere near the most similar sports dynasties. However, the Bad Boy Pistons are definitely reminiscent of the Broad Street Bullies and the Oilers and Showtime Lakers are quite similar as well.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,903
136,976
Bojangles Parking Lot
I'm really fascinated by the internal forces that come to dominant late in a dynasty that seems to have been a theme with the Bulls and Canadiens. The success fatigue that seems to set in on some existential level, the diminishing returns in happiness, the clashes in vision, the failure of the succession plan, the slow decline and organizational rot. The transition of the Pollock to Grundman era really reminded me of the Krause vs. Krause Phase II transition, the Bownman/Jackson ouster.

I'm not sure Bowman was really ousted, he simply left when he didn't get the GM job. Which plays to everything you just talked about... just that there was less of a forced-out component with Bowman than there was with Jackson.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,141
I wouldn't call 1996 a cakewalk. Sonics had a very good team, including Gary Payton who is all time great PG who also won DPOY that year.

The Bulls were up 3-0 in the series before losing two in Seattle. There was never a threat for them to lose, let's just say. Payton was good, and at that time so was Shawn Kemp, but did anyone think the Sonics would beat the Bulls?
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,565
15,909
I'm really fascinated by the internal forces that come to dominant late in a dynasty that seems to have been a theme with the Bulls and Canadiens. The success fatigue that seems to set in on some existential level, the diminishing returns in happiness, the clashes in vision, the failure of the succession plan, the slow decline and organizational rot. The transition of the Pollock to Grundman era really reminded me of the Krause vs. Krause Phase II transition, the Bownman/Jackson ouster.

Yes. Ken Dryden's The Game is significantly about the '78 - '79 season, the Habs final Cup of the dynasty, and he discusses a lot of these things.

He makes it clear he believed that if they could pull it off in the '79 playoffs, then that would be the end of it.

ooh i like the last dance/the game parallel
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,653
51,099
ooh i like the last dance/the game parallel

Feels like teams that reach those dynastic heights really struggle with physical and existential fatigue. Kind of an interesting psychological study for sure. The euphoria of the early titles wear off, the bumps and bruises add up, the egos inflate, people start scanning the horizon for the exit. The franchise seems to plan its own demise from the inside, botched succession plans, myopic vision, etc. The higher you climb the more these factors seem to come into play. The dynastic death drive, if you will.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,653
51,099
Lemaire was his Pippen in the sense that he could carry the puck and make plays. He also covered up for Lafleur defensively, which MJ obviously didn't need. Also, imagine Jordan with a massive upgrade at center (Larry Robinson). Serge Savard and Bob Gainey could be Rodman in that they stifled plays and got the puck back.

Lemaire/Grundman as a management team was basically Jerry Krause, looking to rebuild Montreal and move on from the high flying Lafleur-era Canadiens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tinyzombies

tinyzombies

Registered User
Dec 24, 2002
16,824
2,337
Montreal, QC, Canada
Lemaire/Grundman as a management team was basically Jerry Krause, looking to rebuild Montreal and move on from the high flying Lafleur-era Canadiens.

That came much later. Grundman had been replaced by Savard at that point. Yeah, basically the two guys who had to cover for Lafleur getting revenge lol.
 

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,506
3,055
The Maritimes
Feels like teams that reach those dynastic heights really struggle with physical and existential fatigue. Kind of an interesting psychological study for sure. The euphoria of the early titles wear off, the bumps and bruises add up, the egos inflate, people start scanning the horizon for the exit. The franchise seems to plan its own demise from the inside, botched succession plans, myopic vision, etc. The higher you climb the more these factors seem to come into play. The dynastic death drive, if you will.
Yeah, but it's not easy to stay on top for a long period of time unless there are serious advantages for that team that better enable it to stay strong.

The most important thing are the quality of the players.

In the summer of '79, the Habs lost Lemaire, Cournoyer, and Dryden. Plus, Savard and Lapointe were in serious decline due to a combination of age and injuries.

How do you replace that?

Either you trade them at the optimum time, or you replace them via the draft. It's not easy to do that.

Lucky for the Habs that they drafted very well in the late '70s and throughout the '80s. Combined with the guys remaining from the '70s, their good drafting enabled them to remain strong into the '90s.

The Islanders.....big decline a bit after the dynasty. It's not easy to replace players of the quality of Potvin, Trottier, Bossy, and also the great depth they had. Their drafting was not nearly as good as the Habs as you got into the '80s, after LaFontaine and those guys.

The Bruins did very well after Orr and Esposito. It's really amazing how well they did. They got Park and Ratelle for Esposito, great trade. Another great trade getting Middleton for Hodge. In some ways, the team was more impressive in the late '70s than it was in the early '70s (but of course not in many ways). Then they draft Bourque in '79, etc.
 
Last edited:

Senor Catface

Registered User
Jul 25, 2006
15,833
19,489
Since you guys are talking about Lemaire, I thought I would ask it here instead of creating a new topic.

What was the reason Montreal decided to move Lemaire out of the coaching position after the 84-85 season? Was there any fallout from the friction that existed between him and LaFleur? (Based on this story: The Surprise Retirement Of Guy Lafleur)

Was it a promotion or a "promotion?" (aka hiding a person away in upper management)

If it was a promotion, is this something Lemaire wanted?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->