Favorite Bruin of All-Time Tournament - FINAL (Orr Defeats Bourque) - VOTING CLOSED

[Trap Jesus]

I realize no one here saw him play, but how underrated is Eddie Shore?

He won 4 Hart trophies and was considered the best player in the game. As well as the most entertaining. End to end rushes, brawling, hitting and getting hit. Many great stories about him on and off the ice.

He made Final 8, losing to Bourque. He beat Samsonov, who was a huge reason a lot of younger fans got into the game.

 

[Dr Hook]

I voted for Bourque. Orr was better, but for me having only caught the tail end of Orr's career, Ray Bourque WAS the Bruins. Maybe Bergeron is that guy for the next generation, but I cannot imagine the Bruins for two decades without Bourque on the blueline. Orr played with some great players- that doesn't diminish him at all- but there were times when it felt like it was Ray Bourque and the jags vs the rest of the league. I know that isn't really the case, but it felt like it sometimes. He was our one and only star for so much of the time. Tough vote either way, though.

 

[bbfan419]

Park is so underappreciated, not just here, but around North America.

He finished second to Orr in Norris Trophy voting on 4 occasions and second to Denis Potvin on two other occasions.

Agree big time with this , Brad Park was one heck of a player, wish we would have had him at the same time when Orr was in his prime. Park IMHO was the 2nd best Dman of the 70's.

 

[TCB]

 

[BNHL]

I voted for Bourque. Orr was better, but for me having only caught the tail end of Orr's career, Ray Bourque WAS the Bruins. Maybe Bergeron is that guy for the next generation, but I cannot imagine the Bruins for two decades without Bourque on the blueline. Orr played with some great players- that doesn't diminish him at all- but there were times when it felt like it was Ray Bourque and the jags vs the rest of the league. I know that isn't really the case, but it felt like it sometimes. He was our one and only star for so much of the time. Tough vote either way, though.

Believe it or not,I found myself being disappointed in Bourque after being baptized with Orr from the ages of 8-18. I thought that there would be an eventual Orr parallel,but came to realize that what I saw was once in a lifetime.

 

[sarge88]

Hahaha! Sadly Dom, I wish that were true. Started watching the team back in 1973, when I was 3 (which is also when I first started skating). Got into it because my dad was a huge fan and I would watch with him. My favorite player at the time was Gilles Gilbert mainly because I was so young I thought his name was Gilles-Gilles Bear and I loved that the Bruins mascot was a bear and that the goalie was also named bear (as I was 3 I also had a pretty huge teddy bear phase going on too). The whole french pronunciation was above my pay grade, so I didn't realize his last name was actually Gilbert. But it worked, and here I am 47 years later still watching. lol

First game I got to see live was in 74-75 and Bobby Orr literally hurtled a guy that tried to hip check him. I was sold after that. I saw Orr, I saw Park, I saw Bourque, I saw Chara. The only great dman I didn't get to see play was Eddie Shore. My dad was a huge fan of his and said he was easily the second best dman the team had ever had behind Orr. As I didn't see The Edmonton Express play, I have it as Orr, Ray, Park, then Chara.

I'm the same age as you and until I was probably 7, I thought his name was Joe Joe Bear.

 

[LSCII]

I'm the same age as you and until I was probably 7, I thought his name was Joe Joe Bear.

Now THAT is fan-f***ing-tastic Sarge!! They say great minds think alike, so I guess slightly disturbed minds also follow that idiom? lol

 

[McGarnagle]

I'm the same age as you and until I was probably 7, I thought his name was Joe Joe Bear.

I have the opposite experience, where I grew up playing the NHL games on Super Nintendo and learned players through reading their names, so always thought the Mighty Ducks' goalie was named, pronounced the english way, Guy Herbert.

Years later by the time I actually heard an announcer call a game of his, I was like "Who the hell is Gee Ay-Bear?"

 

[DaaaaB's]

Yep. I get it. I've just been trying to help some of the younger posters here grasp and truly understand how popular Orr was at his height. Literally most of the youth hockey programs in New England started because he made the sport and the team so popular. Bourque was a long time favorite of mine, but he simply cannot measure up compared to Orr and the sheer volume of people he brought to the sport. It's about context. If you never saw the man play, I get it. But even if you didn't see him play, you have to appreciate what he did to promote and grow this sport. That's how off the charts popular he was. It wasn't the Boston Bruins and Bobby Orr. It was Bobby Orr and the Big Bad Boston Bruins. He was transcendent. Even people who weren't fans of hockey knew who he was.

Everybody knows how popular Orr was in the 70's, why would that change anyone's mind on who their favourite player is?

You keep repeating points that myself and most others on here already know. I find it odd that you can't seem to handle people voting for someone other than Orr.

 

[rfournier103]

Ray Bourque was my guy from the time I was 13 in 1987 until he retired in 2001. Even though he played for the Avalanche, I cheered mightily for him to win the Stanley Cup after trying for so long.

Ray was a savage in a long line of blue-line savages. A total warrior. He wasn’t the highest scoring player; or the biggest fighter, but rather he was tough and fearless and unselfish. He was a steady constant on a team that sometimes felt like a revolving door for lesser-lights and never-will-bes.

Most importantly, he brought it Every. Single. Night. And Ray made sure the rest of the Bruins brought it, too.

 

[Wiggleboom]

I think you should do a Bourque vs. Bergeron poll for 2nd place. Bergeron was much closer to Orr than Bourque is so I would expect Bergeron to win that match-up and be the real 2nd place winner (the brackets were just made up and it was bad luck for Bergeron to meet Orr in the semifinal).

 

[Mathews28]

at first this was a tough one for me. I only saw Orr live once, 1970 I think ...I was 8. TV was garbage then and I saw the Bruins on a snowy tv screen, so it was hard to fully appreciate the players. Factor in busy playing multiple sports myself , just wasn’t quite as focused on the Bs at that time as I would become. Mid 70s that started to change. Still the little I saw of Orr, he was just clearly head and heels above other players, he played with passion, he was willing to fight, etc.

In the end I voted for Bourque and it turns out it wasn’t that difficult a vote. he was the man for a much longer period of my personal fandom. For a period of close to 20 years I saw 95% of a Bruins games and attended 10 or so each year. Bourque was an absolute stud. Played the game the right way, skilled, tough, great teammate, good representation of the team.

In the end i guess it came down to who i got to appreciate more live/on TV than via casual viewing and through replays and radio.

 

[MustardStew]

Kinda hard to vote for a player I never got to see play. Sadly, for sure, since I get his skill, impact - everything Bobby was to the Bruins, Boston and hockey in general...

But Ray was the constant of the first 20 years of my Bruins fandom. And sure, it's been almost 20 years since then. (Wow, did I just say that!?) But this is easy. I watched, I knew (as a fan) Bourque... Many have told me about Orr. And who he was to them. But it's not the same.

 

[Orr2Neely8]

Believe it or not,I found myself being disappointed in Bourque after being baptized with Orr from the ages of 8-18. I thought that there would be an eventual Orr parallel,but came to realize that what I saw was once in a lifetime.

This ! Couldn't say it any better !!

 

[ThomasJ13]

If Orr had stayed healthy and played 15-20 years there could have been a time where the Bruins Defense would have had Orr, Park and Bourque.

This. I always wonder how the Bruins-Habs legacies and SC victories in the 70's would change if we substitute in a healthy Orr that played 15+ for Boston, and then give Savard or Robinson (who were nowhere good as Orr anyway) a career ending knee injury after 9-10 years.

Similarly, I wonder the same thing for Boston's legacy and SC's if we get a healthy Neely playing 15+ years. Sometimes we forget that both Orr and Neely (two of the best players in franchise history, and first ballot HOFers) were both done at the age of 30. I can't think of a franchise whose destiny was shaped more by 2 knees.

 

[rfournier103]

If Orr had stayed healthy and played 15-20 years there could have been a time where the Bruins Defense would have had Orr, Park and Bourque.

This. I always wonder how the Bruins-Habs legacies and SC victories in the 70's would change if we substitute in a healthy Orr that played 15+ for Boston, and then give Savard or Robinson (who were nowhere good as Orr anyway) a career ending knee injury after 9-10 years.

What if Orr had been healthy is one of the great “What Ifs” of all time. I wrote a post about it a while back trying to answer the question of who would have had the better career if they had remained healthy: Bobby Orr or Mario Lemieux - and it’s actually the post I’m proudest of. I chose Orr, and it came from the heart, and from a place of wishing it were so...

My apologies, Vanislander. I was a little short on time earlier, but wanted to throw my two cents in. I can expand a little bit more now, although most of the points I would make have already been covered by other posters. I typically don't care for "what ifs," but I'm procrastinating on doing some much needed housekeeping (shows you how much I really don't want to do it).

Both players have two Stanley Cup championships. Both have two Conn Smythe awards. Pretty even there. Lemieux has six Art Ross awards to Orr's two. However, since Orr is a defenseman, I think the fact he has even one Art Ross on his resume is more impressive since no other defenseman has had one. Has another defenseman even finished number two in scoring? If so, my money would be on Paul Coffey. I digress...

I guess I'm going to make my stand based on one series. That would be the infamous 1979 "Too Many Men on the Ice" series against the Canadiens. I was four years old at the time, so I don't remember it. I had other priorities and it was on past my bedtime.

Anyway, the Bruins battled the mighty dynastic Canadiens to an absolute standstill and it took a colossal Bruins blunder and the greatest goal ever scored by Guy Lafleur for Montreal to win the series. As it stands, it is in my opinion the greatest series in NHL history. I despise the result, but for drama, I can't think of a better series ever.

So what happens if a healthy Bobby Orr (still playing for Boston) plays in that series in an alternate timeline?
I have to believe that a healthy Orr would have been the difference in Game 7.

Lets assume that Coach Cherry still replaces Cheevers with Gilbert after Game Two.

In our universe, Games One; Two; and Five were decided by two; three; and four goals respectively. In the alternate universe, I'll assume that Montreal still wins those games - but with the addition of Bobby Orr, the scores are much closer.

I'll also assume that the Bruins win Games Three, Four, and Six at home just as they did in our timeline. In our universe, Games Three and Four were decided by one goal. Game Six was decided by three goals. The Bruins were gaining momentum.

Which brings us to Game Seven. History as we know it has the Bruins losing 5-4 in overtime.

But with Orr and Park on defense together, once the Bruins built their lead, they would more likely than not add to it, or at least maintain it. But how would Orr do offensively? There really IS no way of knowing. What I did was take Orr's career playoff stats and average them out like he was in a bowling league. In 74 career playoff games, Orr averaged .351 goals per game; .891 assists per game; and 1.243 points per game. So, over this seven game series, lets say he had a line of 3-6-9. I did a little rounding up to make some of the numbers work. I don't think that's a bad line for this series. It puts Orr behind Guy Lafleur's 12 points and ties Jean Ratelle's 9 points for the series. Very good for a defenseman, I think.

I believe that Orr sets up at least one more Boston goal in regulation and the Bruins survive the Montreal onslaught in the third period. The too many men on the ice penalty becomes a footnote as the Bruins hold on for a 5-4 win in regulation and easily dispose of the Rangers in the Finals.

So, what's my point? My point is that Orr earns a signature playoff triumph against a dragon he was never able to slay in our timeline. What is or would be Mario's? This wasn't trouncing the expansion St. Louis Blues in a four game sweep. This was a hockey donnybrook that resulted in a 15 round knockout. Yes, Orr still has his iconic 1970 Cup-clincher, but he never had a series like this one. Only the 2004 ALCS triumph of the Red Sox over the Yankees could compare to the '79 Semi-Final had it gone the Bruins' way. It paves the way for a THIRD Stanley Cup championship for Orr; possibly a third Conn Smythe (however, I think Gilles Gilbert gets it); and makes Orr a hero in a bitterly contested series for the ages. Orr's Bruins even take a nice big bite out of the Montreal dynasty to boot. Even had Mario Lemieux remained healthy, would he EVER have faced anyone as fearsome as the 1979 Canadiens? No. No way in hell.

This one game in this one series changes so much for Bobby Orr. Leaving 1979 aside for a moment - could there have been other Stanley Cup championships? Maybe. More scoring and bigger stats? Absolutely. The whole structure of the NHL changes with a healthy Orr skating for the Boston Bruins.

My two cents.

 

[ThomasJ13]

What if Orr had been healthy is one of the great “What Ifs” of all time. I wrote a post about it a while back trying to answer the question of who would have had the better career if they had remained healthy: Bobby Orr or Mario Lemieux - and it’s actually the post I’m proudest of. I chose Orr, and it came from the heart, and from a place of wishing it were so...

Great post (of an old post)! Totally agree with your assessment - not even sure the '79 series goes to seven games with Orr there.

I also wonder what would have happened in the '77-`78 final if Orr was still a Bruin. I know the Habs dusted them in 6, but you've got to wonder how much better that Bruins D, and team, would be with Orr. I mean, Mike Milbury was getting top minutes....

 

[PepeBostones]

I voted for Bobby Orr.

He's the reason I'm a Boston Bruins fan and he still my idol if you wanna call it that.

Ray Bourque is a close second on my fav Bruins list and a player I've followed since Aug 9, 1979 when he was drafted by the Bruins. I had high hopes, but certainly did not expect Bourque to become imo the 2nd best defenseman in NHL history. Funny thing is I (and perhaps many Bruins fans) wanted Bourque to be almost as good as Bobby Orr. (in reality almost as good, not better. Raymond accomplished that for sure.

 

[LSCII]

Everybody knows how popular Orr was in the 70's, why would that change anyone's mind on who their favourite player is?

You keep repeating points that myself and most others on here already know. I find it odd that you can't seem to handle people voting for someone other than Orr.

Again, as I've explained multiple times to you now, the point of one of these kinds of polls isn't the actual poll but the discussions it creates because that's the interesting part. You don't like that I've talked about Orr and some of the older players that have had their stars fade a bit, and that's fine, but why the constant need to try and stop it? If someone likes the discussion or finds it interesting, what is the harm in letting them have it? Why the incessant need to try and police what people say or are posting about?

In terms of overall popularity, that to me is the same as favorite. They're synonymous with each other. As for who wins this thing, again, I've said all along it's irrelevant. The important and fun part is the discussion and memories it triggers. You don't seem to enjoy or like that, so maybe just let the folks that are enjoying it have their fun? Seems like a far easier thing to do than to try and dictate what people post here, no? Totally up to you though.

 

[LSCII]

I have the opposite experience, where I grew up playing the NHL games on Super Nintendo and learned players through reading their names, so always thought the Mighty Ducks' goalie was named, pronounced the english way, Guy Herbert.

Years later by the time I actually heard an announcer call a game of his, I was like "Who the hell is Gee Ay-Bear?"

So funny story about that guy, or that Guy??? lol

Hebert is American and his name is actually pronounced with no French inflection. He realized in college that nobody was going to draft and American goalie named Guy Hebert and changed it to the French pronunciation to give himself a better chance of getting to the NHL.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Ray Bourque was my guy from the time I was 13 in 1987 until he retired in 2001. Even though he played for the Avalanche, I cheered mightily for him to win the Stanley Cup after trying for so long.

Ray was a savage in a long line of blue-line savages. A total warrior. He wasn’t the highest scoring player; or the biggest fighter, but rather he was tough and fearless and unselfish. He was a steady constant on a team that sometimes felt like a revolving door for lesser-lights and never-will-bes.

Most importantly, he brought it Every. Single. Night. And Ray made sure the rest of the Bruins brought it, too.

Actually, he is the highest scoring defenseman in NHL history.

 

[rfournier103]

Actually, he is the highest scoring defenseman in NHL history.

That is very true.

What I should have said was that he wasn’t a flashy goal scorer. Because that was really the point I was trying to make.

I’m actually more than a little embarrassed that I didn’t word that better. I hope you don’t hold that against me (not sarcasm).

 

[LSCII]

Actually, he is the highest scoring defenseman in NHL history.

Loved Ray, but that's really more a factor of his longevity than his innate scoring prowess. He was still a very productive player, but it's not like he was Gretzky or anything.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Loved Ray, but that's really more a factor of his longevity than his innate scoring prowess. He was still a very productive player, but it's not like he was Gretzky or anything.

Bourque had ten seasons of over 80 points. Four over 90 points.

Not Gretzky-like, but one of the better offensive defensemen.

 

[LSCII]

Bourque had ten seasons of over 80 points. Four over 90 points.

Not Gretzky-like, but one of the better offensive defensemen.

Absolutely. Was very productive and for a long time. But he wasn't like Orr leading the league in scoring multiple times. To better explain what I mean, RB has a PPG average of .98 while Orr has a 1.39 PPG average. Ray was great, but Orr was a pure scorer, if that makes sense.