Early era (pre 1926) all time team

[UltimateHockeyFan8]

I've only been visiting this site for a few months, but I can already say that I'm in awe of the knowledge of the historians on these boards. I'm greatly interested in historic hockey and have learned so much on this site, although there is one topic I can't seem to find much information on: the pre 1926 early era. Being the early era, It's only natural that it's the least talked about, but I was wondering for a long time what would be the best all time team for this era. I know of the greatest players like Cyclone, Newsy, Malone, Cleghorn, Benedict etc. but I want to know how the historians on this site would place them on a roster, and how guys like Frank McGee, Joe Hall, and Lester Patrick would fit into the mix (if at all). So my question to you is to make a full all time team for this era and maybe some honorable mentions. Any players in any leagues of the era are applicable. Also if possible note some intangibles and accolades for the players to prove your judgment. I feel that this era gets unfairly overlooked by many fans, and I would love to see people's opinions on this subject. Thank you.

Click to read more...

 

[Moses Doughty]

One question. Is this for players who played their entire career pre 26, most of their career pre 26, or only played any pro time before 1926?

 

[UltimateHockeyFan8]

A player listed would have had to have played his prime seasons in that era, so most of his career. Example: Howie Morenz started in 1923, but his PRIME was from 1928-32, so he would not be eligible. On the other hand, a guy like Babe Dye would be eligible because, even though his career passes 1926, his prime was during the era.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This site is a great resource for pre-1926 hockey. At the bottom, the writer lists his all-time teams for the PCHA, NHA, early NHL (which is really just the NHA minus one team), and WCHL.

http://www.makojo.com/earlyhockey.html

The only issue I have is that I have read reports that Eddie Gerard was considered to be a better defenseman than contemporaries Harry Cameron and Georges Boucher, so he should probably be on one of the teams in front of one of them (not sure if Gerard was considered a point or cover point).

 

[Hardyvan123]

Are you talking about a modern day roster (12-6-2) or a roster as it existed then with a Rover which existed for most of the time period being considered here.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

As for an all-time team, it really depends on if you require players to stay in their natural positions, since the very best best offensive players of the early era either played center or rover, rather than either wing.

 

[mbhhofr]

I just bought and started reading a very good book. Sports Illustrated "The Hockey Book". It covers hockey from the very beginning, 1875 through 1925-26, 1926-27 through 1945-46, 1946-47 through 1966-67, 1967-68 through 1978-79, 1979-80 through 1990-91, 1991-92 through 2003-04 and 2005-06 to the present.

It has great photos and stories. It lists the All Stars of the 1875 through 1925-26 era as follows:

First Team, Cy Denneny, Joe Malone, Frank McGee, Art Ross, Lester Patrick and George Vezina.

Second Team: Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde, Hobey Baker, Sprague Cleghorn, Eddie Gerard and Clint Benedict. The coach is Pete Green.

 

[UltimateHockeyFan8]

Yes the teams should be submitted in a modern format 12-6-2, and yes position changing is acceptable, because I realize the Center position is packed with stars.

 

[Moses Doughty]

Ok I see. I agree with the players on that list by the Hockey Book from what I know, which isnt much. Couldnt give a full roster since most players I know playing then wouldnt qualify

 

[CHGoalie27]

I just bought and started reading a very good book. Sports Illustrated "The Hockey Book". It covers hockey from the very beginning, 1875 through 1925-26, 1926-27 through 1945-46, 1946-47 through 1966-67, 1967-68 through 1978-79, 1979-80 through 1990-91, 1991-92 through 2003-04 and 2005-06 to the present.

It has great photos and stories. It lists the All Stars of the 1875 through 1925-26 era as follows:

First Team, Cy Denneny, Joe Malone, Frank McGee, Art Ross, Lester Patrick and George Vezina.

Second Team: Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde, Hobey Baker, Sprague Cleghorn, Eddie Gerard and Clint Benedict. The coach is Pete Green.

Why McGee over Cyclone on first team?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I just bought and started reading a very good book. Sports Illustrated "The Hockey Book". It covers hockey from the very beginning, 1875 through 1925-26, 1926-27 through 1945-46, 1946-47 through 1966-67, 1967-68 through 1978-79, 1979-80 through 1990-91, 1991-92 through 2003-04 and 2005-06 to the present.

It has great photos and stories. It lists the All Stars of the 1875 through 1925-26 era as follows:

First Team, Cy Denneny, Joe Malone, Frank McGee, Art Ross, Lester Patrick and George Vezina.

Second Team: Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde, Hobey Baker, Sprague Cleghorn, Eddie Gerard and Clint Benedict. The coach is Pete Green.

Well, from my research, those are some pretty awful choice. There is no way that George Vezina was a better goalie than Clint Benedict. Seems he's there on name recognition alone (since the Canadiens donated the Vezina trophy after his early death).

No Frank Nighbor is pretty bad too, but that seems par for the course (THN had him as a throw in on their top 100 list as well).

I just saw Hobey Baker listed? Wow, that's definitely proof that those teams were put together based on name recognition, rather than accomplishments.

Edit: Art Ross and Lester Patrick may have been better than Gerard, but probably not. Either way, seems like more name recognition to me.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes the teams should be submitted in a modern format 12-6-2, and yes position changing is acceptable, because I realize the Center position is packed with stars.

Well in that case, this is my attempt. I'm pretending that Cyclone Taylor was a forward, since I think center is the closest modern thing to the old rover position.

Edit: This is all-team 1914-1926. I'm not very good with ranking guys from before World War 1, when records are scarce and the leagues fragmented.

First team

Forwards: Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde, Frank Nighbor
Defense: Sprague Cleghorn, Ernie "Moose" Johnson
Goal: Clint Benedict

Second Team

Forwards: Joe Malone, Cy Denneny, Babe Dye
Defense: Eddie Gerard, Georges "Buck" Boucher
Goal: Georges Vezina

I'm very confident with the above teams, with the exception of second team goal (Hap Holmes and Hugh Lehman both might be better than Vezina, but I stuck with conventional wisdom there).

If you want to include earlier guys, Russel Bowie probably needs to be one of the forwards, instead of Babe Dye. I doubt any of the other pre-1926 forwards were good enough to knock Denneny off the team.

On D, it's possible that Lester Patrick was better than Buck Boucher; but then it's possible that he wasn't.

 

[ForsbergForever]

I just bought and started reading a very good book. Sports Illustrated "The Hockey Book". It covers hockey from the very beginning, 1875 through 1925-26, 1926-27 through 1945-46, 1946-47 through 1966-67, 1967-68 through 1978-79, 1979-80 through 1990-91, 1991-92 through 2003-04 and 2005-06 to the present.

It has great photos and stories. It lists the All Stars of the 1875 through 1925-26 era as follows:

First Team, Cy Denneny, Joe Malone, Frank McGee, Art Ross, Lester Patrick and George Vezina.

Second Team: Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde, Hobey Baker, Sprague Cleghorn, Eddie Gerard and Clint Benedict. The coach is Pete Green.

I can't believe Newsy Lalonde is on the second team, and what about Russell Bowie? He had a career average of three goals a game...

 

[Hardyvan123]

Well, from my research, those are some pretty awful choice. There is no way that George Vezina was a better goalie than Clint Benedict. Seems he's there on name recognition alone (since the Canadiens donated the Vezina trophy after his early death).

No Frank Nighbor is pretty bad too, but that seems par for the course (THN had him as a throw in on their top 100 list as well).

I just saw Hobey Baker listed? Wow, that's definitely proof that those teams were put together based on name recognition, rather than accomplishments.

Edit: Art Ross and Lester Patrick may have been better than Gerard, but probably not. Either way, seems like more name recognition to me.

I thought the same thing about baker, although that period is not my most knowledgeable it's hard how to rate guy like him based on reputation , rather than actual playing in the top leagues of the day.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

It's hard to work everyone in by position because of the multi-position nature of the time and and it's hard to compare amateurs to pros because amateur careers were shorter. So, with that in mind, I'm making my teams 3-1-2-1. With the forwards being non positional and judging amateur players as though their playing days were just peak and they had a normal career path outside of peak.

First team:
Frank Nighbor-Frank McGee-Russel Bowie
Fred Taylor
Sprague Cleghorn-Ernie Johnson
Clint Benedict

Second team:
Joe Malone-Tommy Phillips-Cecil Dye
Edouard Lalonde
Hod Stuart-Eddie Gerard
Harry Holmes

 

[Dreakmur]

It's hard to work everyone in by position because of the multi-position nature of the time and and it's hard to compare amateurs to pros because amateur careers were shorter. So, with that in mind, I'm making my teams 3-1-2-1. With the forwards being non positional and judging amateur players as though their playing days were just peak and they had a normal career path outside of peak.

First team:
Frank Nighbor-Frank McGee-Russel Bowie
Fred Taylor
Sprague Cleghorn-Ernie Johnson
Clint Benedict

Second team:
Joe Malone-Tommy Phillips-Cecil Dye
Edouard Lalonde
Hod Stuart-Eddie Gerard
Harry Holmes

Nice to see Bowie on the first team. I think he should be there, but only of you are ignoring position - there's no way he's at center ahead of Nighbor or at rover head of Taylor. He's certainly better than any of the wingers available.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's hard to work everyone in by position because of the multi-position nature of the time and and it's hard to compare amateurs to pros because amateur careers were shorter. So, with that in mind, I'm making my teams 3-1-2-1. With the forwards being non positional and judging amateur players as though their playing days were just peak and they had a normal career path outside of peak.

First team:
Frank Nighbor-Frank McGee-Russel Bowie
Fred Taylor
Sprague Cleghorn-Ernie Johnson
Clint Benedict

Second team:
Joe Malone-Tommy Phillips-Cecil Dye
Edouard Lalonde
Hod Stuart-Eddie Gerard
Harry Holmes

Pretty good, but I can't see how Cecil (Babe) Dye was better than Cy Denneny, if you are ignoring positions. (Or did you just forget Cy? That's why I didn't want to do the whole period myself, I knew I'd forget some important pre-NHL guys).

Also, I'm pretty sure Lalonde spent much more time at center than rover, but putting him back there does let you include more forwards.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Pretty good, but I can't see how Cecil (Babe) Dye was better than Cy Denneny, if you are ignoring positions. (Or did you just forget Cy? That's why I didn't want to do the whole period myself, I knew I'd forget some important pre-NHL guys).

Also, I'm pretty sure Lalonde spent much more time at center than rover, but putting him back there does let you include more forwards.

Dye and Denneny was by far the toughest choice I had to make. (More so than Gerard over Cameron and Holmes over Vezina.) What it basically came to is that neither are known for having a complete game, both were top snipers, and, when bother were peaking together, Dye was superior. Add to that, Denneny had far superior linemates. (Nighbor, Darragh and Broadbent up front and Gerard, Cleghorn, Boucher and Clancy from the blueline.) And I had to give Dye the slight edge.

 

[jkrx]

Ignoring forward/rover/center positions.

Taylor - Denneny - Lalonde
Cleghorn - Boucher
Benedict

Malone - Nighbor - Dye
Johnson - Corbeau
Vezina

 

[seventieslord]

Well in that case, this is my attempt. I'm pretending that Cyclone Taylor was a forward, since I think center is the closest modern thing to the old rover position.

Edit: This is all-team 1914-1926. I'm not very good with ranking guys from before World War 1, when records are scarce and the leagues fragmented.

First team

Forwards: Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde, Frank Nighbor
Defense: Sprague Cleghorn, Ernie "Moose" Johnson
Goal: Clint Benedict

Second Team

Forwards: Joe Malone, Cy Denneny, Babe Dye
Defense: Eddie Gerard, Georges "Buck" Boucher
Goal: Georges Vezina

I'm very confident with the above teams, with the exception of second team goal (Hap Holmes and Hugh Lehman both might be better than Vezina, but I stuck with conventional wisdom there).

If you want to include earlier guys, Russel Bowie probably needs to be one of the forwards, instead of Babe Dye. I doubt any of the other pre-1926 forwards were good enough to knock Denneny off the team.

On D, it's possible that Lester Patrick was better than Buck Boucher; but then it's possible that he wasn't.

I agree with this team 100%, including the caveats at the end.

Although - I would definitely say Vezina was 2nd and not just a "probably" ahead of Holmes and Lehman.

 

[seventieslord]

Ignoring forward/rover/center positions.

Taylor - Denneny - Lalonde
Cleghorn - Boucher
Benedict

Malone - Nighbor - Dye
Johnson - Corbeau
Vezina

Why on earth Bert Corbeau? There's Eddie Gerard, Harry Cameron, Harvey Pulford, Mike Grant, Hod Stuart, Si Griffis, Lester & Frank Patrick, Art Ross, Joe Hall, and I'd take George McNamara over him as well.

 

[jkrx]

Why on earth Bert Corbeau? There's 6, Harry Cameron, Harvey Pulford, Mike Grant, Hod Stuart, Si Griffis, Lester & Frank Patrick, Art Ross, Joe Hall, and I'd take George McNamara over him as well.

Because he is one of the guys my father used to talk about him all the time. Frank Patrick wasn't, from what I heard, a better defenseman.

I chose between him and Pulford but since I remember more of Bert I took him.

 

[seventieslord]

Because he is one of the guys my father used to talk about him all the time. Frank Patrick wasn't, from what I heard, a better defenseman.

I chose between him and Pulford but since I remember more of Bert I took him.

I realize his career was short compared to most of the others I named, but he led the PCHA in scoring by defensemen every time he played a full season. And he was at one point declared by the NY Times to be the most outstanding defenseman in Canada. I realize we don't have a lot to go by, but it certainly looks like his stature was a lot higher.

 

[UltimateHockeyFan8]

Thanks for all your teams,
but I would also like to see your 3rd and 4th lines and D parings and all, just like a normal team's, because I know that Cyclone, Nighbor, Lalonde and Malone are best forwards, and Cleghorn, Boucher, and Johnson etc are the best defensemen. I would like to see where some of the ''lesser'' guys would enter the mix. Like how you guys think MacKay, Keats, Fredrickton, McGee, Foyston etc would fit in at Center (or other positions) and how Darragh, Pitre, Bowie, Broadbent, and others would fit in at the wing and the same with the defensemen. So, could you make the teams a 12-6-2 format, with 4 lines, 3 D parings, and two goalies. Thanks.

 

[seventieslord]

Thanks for all your teams,
but I would also like to see your 3rd and 4th lines and D parings and all, just like a normal team's, because I know that Cyclone, Nighbor, Lalonde and Malone are best forwards, and Cleghorn, Boucher, and Johnson etc are the best defensemen. I would like to see where some of the ''lesser'' guys would enter the mix. Like how you guys think MacKay, Keats, Fredrickton, McGee, Foyston etc would fit in at Center (or other positions) and how Darragh, Pitre, Bowie, Broadbent, and others would fit in at the wing and the same with the defensemen. So, could you make the teams a 12-6-2 format, with 4 lines, 3 D parings, and two goalies. Thanks.

just best of the best? or the most cohesive team with role players?

and, 12 forwards? or 4 LW, 4 C, 4 RW? Because those are two completely different end results.