How good were the 82-83 Bruins?

[Randomtask68]

I was checking out some stats and happened upon the Bruins 1982-83 season. The regular season stats are okay, but what really surprised me was that both Barry Pederson and Rick Middleton had more than 30 points in a playoffs where they did not reach the finals, only playing 17 games. How good was this team, and is the best playoff performance from players that did not reach the finals?

Click to read more...

 

[lextune]

We were a great team that year. A great mix of veterans and powerful young players.

If not for the dynastic Islander team we have a great shot at the Cup.

You already mentioned Pederson and Middleton, they had a fantastic chemistry together. And in the Conference finals a 22 year old Bourque really took the final step in becoming the leader of the Bruins franchise.

In games 5 and 6, Ray actually took shifts as a LW in an effort by Cheevers to run-and-gun with the powerhouse Isles. Bubba would take his regular pairing on D and then every second or third time through the lines he would take a fourth line shift as a winger.

Bourque never missed a beat and scored goals as a forward in both games. Including a Rocket Richard type of "take the puck straight to the net while crashing through anyone in the way" goal in game 6 that will live in my memory forever....

....unfortunately Bossy scored two quick ones right after that, lol. They were just too much to deal with, (as a young Oilers team would find out in the next round).

 

[BlackDog13]

Not good enough.








j/k They were pretty damn good.

 

[BamBamCam*]

The Islanders were just that good during that stretch as they proved for those 4 years.

But that Bruins team was great in itself but those Islanders were just incredible. Barry Peterson was outstanding that playoffs along with Nifty. Cashman showed he still had life in him even though he retired after this year. Pete Peters was decent in the playoffs but not as good as he was in the regular season when he was dominant. If I remember right, Taz was injured and didn't play that year or very few games. Gordie Kluzak' first year who was supposed to become the next Bourque but never did. The underrated Peter McNabb was great too.

There were a big offensive force, especially when you look and see players like Mike O'Connell getting over 50 points in the regular season.

The only bad news this year was the trade of my man...Stan Jonathan

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

50-20-10, best record in the league.

Middleton, Pederson & Krushelnyski was the team's best offensive and defensive line. They were really fun to watch. Bourque, Mike O'Connell & Brad Park were a very formidable top 3 on D and Pete Peeters had a career year, even though most nights the B's had the puck most of the time and he didn't have to be great.

 

[lextune]

If I remember right, Taz was injured and didn't play that year or very few games.

Correct. Knee injury ended his year by Jan/Feb. He didn't play in the playoffs at all.

He is listed as playing 19 regular season games but if my memory serves even those were spaced out over the year.

We definitely missed him.

 

[Starchild74]

I was young still but one thing I remember from the Bruins in those playoffs especially against the Islanders. They were two kind of teams. They seemed to play more physical at home and better defensively. Because Boston Garden was small they used it to their advantage but when in New York it just seemed like they were always a step behind the Islanders

It was a good series and at the time we didn't know it but that was probably the most important playoffs for the Bruins. It set up there teams of the late 80's and early 90's. If it wasn't for Pederson playing the way he did. I doubt the canucks would have traded Neely for him

As an Oiler fan this series scared me. The Bruins were a better team then the Blackhawks and the Isalnders were taking care of the Bruins pretty easy at times.

In the end I hate putting blame on a certain player but Pete Peeters did not play in the playoffs the way he did in the regular season. Even against the Sabres Peeters was leaving in some bad goals. Once again not putting the whole blame on him but what I remember is that when the Islanders needed it Smith would make the big save but Peeters couldn't do the same for the Bruins. Also it is hard to win when the opposition is averaging 5 goals a game in the series and on the road it was almost 8 goals a game.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Starchild-

You hit on two things I was going to say but didn't. Yes, Pederson's year definitely set up the Cam trade later. When the trade happened everyone thought the Canucks got the better end of the stick but now we know Sinden fleeced the Nucks.

I made mention but you said it better, Peters was not as good in the playoffs and that did make the difference in my mind.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Little Bit Short

We were a great team that year. A great mix of veterans and powerful young players.

If not for the dynastic Islander team we have a great shot at the Cup.

You already mentioned Pederson and Middleton, they had a fantastic chemistry together. And in the Conference finals a 22 year old Bourque really took the final step in becoming the leader of the Bruins franchise.

In games 5 and 6, Ray actually took shifts as a LW in an effort by Cheevers to run-and-gun with the powerhouse Isles. Bubba would take his regular pairing on D and then every second or third time through the lines he would take a fourth line shift as a winger.

Bourque never missed a beat and scored goals as a forward in both games. Including a Rocket Richard type of "take the puck straight to the net while crashing through anyone in the way" goal in game 6 that will live in my memory forever....

....unfortunately Bossy scored two quick ones right after that, lol. They were just too much to deal with, (as a young Oilers team would find out in the next round).

Post hilites the strengths of the Bruins yet it clearly points out the weakness - lack of depth. when the #1 d-man has to take shifts at forward the lack of depth eventually catches up to the team.

 

[lextune]

Post hilites the strengths of the Bruins yet it clearly points out the weakness - lack of depth. when the #1 d-man has to take shifts at forward the lack of depth eventually catches up to the team.

I agree.

We had a killer 1st line, and a serviceable 2nd. But couldn't buy a goal after that.....

Plagued the Bruins throughout Bourque's career actually. It has often, (and rightfully so in my opinion), been blamed on cheap ownership....

....but that is another story.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Harry Sinden

I agree.

We had a killer 1st line, and a serviceable 2nd. But couldn't buy a goal after that.....

Plagued the Bruins throughout Bourque's career actually. It has often, (and rightfully so in my opinion), been blamed on cheap ownership....

....but that is another story.

Not sure that ownership was the only issue.

Harry Sinden had early success as a coach and GM in circumstances where he could only look good. But he reached a plateau early and never progressed as a GM or as a coach in his brief interum stints. At the end he was somewhat of a parody of himself.

 

[finchster]

When I think of that season, Normand Leveille is the only name that comes to mind.

 

[brianscot]

Boston's solid regular season offensive depth disappeared in playoffs. Peter McNab scored only 3 goals and planet Tom Fergus scored only two.

In addition to O'reilly's injury, Mike Milbury suffered a broken knee cap against Quebec late in the season which forced 18 year old Gord Kluzak into taking more minutes in the playoffs.

Milbury was hardly Larry Robinson, but he was a veteran presence in playoff hockey.

The key to the Islander series was New York's winning game one in Boston. Boston held their own in winning two other games in Boston, but were blown out of the water on the Isle.

One of Boston's defensive keys was Peter Peeters handling the puck. The Islanders neutralized that with soft dump ins and carrying it in.

It was a nice run, but the Bruins' were really over matched against the Islanders, especially in NY.

 

[Big Phil]

For some reason the 1983 Bruins and the 2000 Blues have always had similarities to each other. I'm just talking regular season here though of course, since the Blues were upset in the first round by the Sharks while the Bruins made the semis and lost to a dynasty team.

Both teams were always "good" and in the mix as a good to very good team in the NHL. Everyone knew this and it was no surprise if either team had 90-95 points. But for some reason they ballooned that year and it turned out to be kind of an abberation for both teams. Neither was ever as good in the regular season around that time again (1990 for Boston was a much different team).

Both had great years from their goalies (Peeters and Turek), had Norris caliber defensemen (MacInnis, Pronger, Bourque) and a very good forward corps (this was a brief time when Pierre Turgeon looked like he would do damage in the postseason).

 

[Starchild74]

Not to change the thread at all but the 1982-83 Boston team was just another Bruins team that was good enough to win the Cup. Just came up short again

Just look at the Bruins history up until then

1976 lose to the defending cup Champions Flyers who go to the Final
1977 Lose to Montreal in the Final
1978 Lose to Montreal in the Final
1979 Lose to Montreal in game 7 to get to the cup
1980 Lose to the New York Islanders in the quarter finals who go on to win the Cup
1983 Lose to the New York Islanders in the Conference Final

Now after that season it was more of the same

1986 Lose to Montreal in the DSF Montreal goes on to win the cup
1988 Lose to the Oilers in the Final
1989 Lose to Montreal in the DF who go to the Final
1990 Lose to Edmonton in the final
1991 Lose Pittsburh in the CF Penguins win the cup
1992 Lose to Pittsburgh in the CF Penguins win the cup
1995 Lose to New Jersey first round Devils win the cup
1996 Lose to Florida in the first round Florida goes to the cup

Now I am not putting Boston down or making excuses. But in the last 40 years The F Canadiens, Islanders, Oilers and Penguins have won consecutive Cups Boston lost to every one of those teams in the playoffsat least twice.

1982-83 was just another season where the Bruins in the regular season were a really good team and in the playoffs played and lost to many of the greatest teams. It is just that Boston always had to go through teams that were poised to win and be a dynasty. Later on their playoffs ended early by the team that either won or lost in the Finals

While some good teams in the past were lucky to avoid playing great teams the Bruins always seemed to have to play the best teams. I think that in 1982-83 even though it was a different team from the teams of 1976-1980 it was still a weight in the dressing room. Just one of those things of what will go wrong now? They just couldn't beat those teams.

I always found the Bruins very interesting for this. Since 1972 the Bruins are probably the best Franchise to never win the cup, and with a little luck that they never seem to have maybe would have won a few.

 

[finchster]

Not to change the thread at all but the 1982-83 Boston team was just another Bruins team that was good enough to win the Cup. Just came up short again

Just look at the Bruins history up until then

1976 lose to the defending cup Champions Flyers who go to the Final
1977 Lose to Montreal in the Final
1978 Lose to Montreal in the Final
1979 Lose to Montreal in game 7 to get to the cup
1980 Lose to the New York Islanders in the quarter finals who go on to win the Cup
1983 Lose to the New York Islanders in the Conference Final

Now after that season it was more of the same

1986 Lose to Montreal in the DSF Montreal goes on to win the cup
1988 Lose to the Oilers in the Final
1989 Lose to Montreal in the DF who go to the Final
1990 Lose to Edmonton in the final
1991 Lose Pittsburh in the CF Penguins win the cup
1992 Lose to Pittsburgh in the CF Penguins win the cup
1995 Lose to New Jersey first round Devils win the cup
1996 Lose to Florida in the first round Florida goes to the cup

Now I am not putting Boston down or making excuses. But in the last 40 years The F Canadiens, Islanders, Oilers and Penguins have won consecutive Cups Boston lost to every one of those teams in the playoffsat least twice.

1982-83 was just another season where the Bruins in the regular season were a really good team and in the playoffs played and lost to many of the greatest teams. It is just that Boston always had to go through teams that were poised to win and be a dynasty. Later on their playoffs ended early by the team that either won or lost in the Finals

While some good teams in the past were lucky to avoid playing great teams the Bruins always seemed to have to play the best teams. I think that in 1982-83 even though it was a different team from the teams of 1976-1980 it was still a weight in the dressing room. Just one of those things of what will go wrong now? They just couldn't beat those teams.

I always found the Bruins very interesting for this. Since 1972 the Bruins are probably the best Franchise to never win the cup, and with a little luck that they never seem to have maybe would have won a few.

The Bruins in the mid 80's to early 90's preformed well, but they were not good teams. They got by on 2-3 good players and most of the rest were AHL level talent.

 

[Bruwinz37]

The Bruins in the mid 80's to early 90's preformed well, but they were not good teams. They got by on 2-3 good players and most of the rest were AHL level talent.

Simply not true at least in the late 80s-early 90s. They were very, very good teams with depth at forward, D and in goal. To suggest they had AHL level talent is plain stupid. Yes, they ran into dynasty teams in the Oilers and Pens which prevented a Cup, but a lot of teams can say that.

 

[finchster]

Simply not true at least in the late 80s-early 90s. They were very, very good teams with depth at forward, D and in goal. To suggest they had AHL level talent is plain stupid. Yes, they ran into dynasty teams in the Oilers and Pens which prevented a Cup, but a lot of teams can say that.

Take the cup finalist team in 1990, guys like Bob Sweeney Andy Brickley and Randy Burrage were first and second line guys on the Bruins, they would be third and fourth liners on good teams (Brick was having a good year, injuries cut his career short but he was not a first or second line player).

Craig Janney was the definition of a floater, he rode the coat tails of Bourque and Neely, and was terrible defensively. Allen Pedersen was taking a regular PK shift on D that year, (everyone is thinking, who?). They had a good goalie duo yes, but that team got by on Neely and Bourque’s talent.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Starchild-

You hit on two things I was going to say but didn't. Yes, Pederson's year definitely set up the Cam trade later. When the trade happened everyone thought the Canucks got the better end of the stick but now we know Sinden fleeced the Nucks.

I made mention but you said it better, Peters was not as good in the playoffs and that did make the difference in my mind.

Pederson was a great young player whose career was basically ended by that shoulder injury as he was never the same player after that.

Coming to the Canucks they had Jim Sandlak playing with him and you could still see Pederson hockey sense but the Canucks had no one to play with him.

He would have been one of the all time greats if that injury had never happened IMO.

 

[lextune]

Simply not true at least in the late 80s-early 90s. They were very, very good teams with depth at forward, D and in goal. To suggest they had AHL level talent is plain stupid. Yes, they ran into dynasty teams in the Oilers and Pens which prevented a Cup, but a lot of teams can say that.

I wouldn't go so far as to say AHL talent, but essentially finchster is right.

Janney was fine playmaker, soft as anyone in league history, but whatever....we can call him a legit 1st line center, and then of course Cam.

After that it is not an exaggeration in the least to say we had a bunch of 3rd and 4th line forwards.

The only exception would be the 1990 playoff run. After the debacle of '88 the B's did make a deadline attempt at putting the team over the top in '90 by picking up Poulin and Propp.

The D was mediocre at best outside of Bourque (obviously), and Wesley.

 

[Canadiens1958]

AHL Talent vs Boston Garden Talent / Sinden

The issue of the Bruins and AHL talent was raised. I would not support the view but would look at a long term argument - five consecutive seasons vs one specific season.

The question that was raised by certain observers in Montreal during Harry Sinden`s tenure,especially ost Don Cherry, as the Bruins GM touched Boston Garden talent. Specifically players that looked good on the smaller Garden ice surface but were a bit slow or challenged on the standard 200 x 85 sheet that was the norm for the vast majority of rinks.

Second and third pairing d-men or third/fourth line players come to mind. Examples would be Mike Milbury or the Byers, Markwart type of forward.

Harry Sinden should have recognized this yet perpetuated the trend, going as far as blaming repeated disappointments on referees, ghosts and other factors.

 

[Big Phil]

I wouldn't go so far as to say AHL talent, but essentially finchster is right.

Janney was fine playmaker, soft as anyone in league history, but whatever....we can call him a legit 1st line center, and then of course Cam.

After that it is not an exaggeration in the least to say we had a bunch of 3rd and 4th line forwards.

The only exception would be the 1990 playoff run. After the debacle of '88 the B's did make a deadline attempt at putting the team over the top in '90 by picking up Poulin and Propp.

The D was mediocre at best outside of Bourque (obviously), and Wesley.

I'm not a Bruins fan, but the proof is in the pudding with them. They led the NHL in points in 1990 for a reason. People say, "Well all they had was Bourque". Yeah so? It's Raymond freakin Bourque! The best defenseman in the NHL at that time without a mere doubt. Cam Neely was the best RW in the game outside of Brett Hull. Janney might have been soft but was scored at a 90 point clip in those days.

If the D is "mediocre" outside of Bourque and Wesley I still think you are in good shape. I wouldn't have called Don Sweeney mediocre though, just solid. Gary Galley? Not bad either. Plus the best goalie duo in the NHL. Moog was very capable of winning the Cup as a starter. Lemelin was a good back up.

Plus that team had a lot of character. Linseman, Carpenter, Propp, Poulin, B. Sweeney. Maybe these guys weren't 1st team all-stars but if guys like this are you're depth with Bourque and Neely at the top I think you're alright.

 

[lextune]

Maybe these guys weren't 1st team all-stars but if guys like this are you're depth with Bourque and Neely at the top I think you're alright.

Demonstrably.

 

[finchster]

I'm not a Bruins fan, but the proof is in the pudding with them. They led the NHL in points in 1990 for a reason. People say, "Well all they had was Bourque". Yeah so? It's Raymond freakin Bourque! The best defenseman in the NHL at that time without a mere doubt. Cam Neely was the best RW in the game outside of Brett Hull. Janney might have been soft but was scored at a 90 point clip in those days.

If the D is "mediocre" outside of Bourque and Wesley I still think you are in good shape. I wouldn't have called Don Sweeney mediocre though, just solid. Gary Galley? Not bad either. Plus the best goalie duo in the NHL. Moog was very capable of winning the Cup as a starter. Lemelin was a good back up.

Plus that team had a lot of character. Linseman, Carpenter, Propp, Poulin, B. Sweeney. Maybe these guys weren't 1st team all-stars but if guys like this are you're depth with Bourque and Neely at the top I think you're alright.

That was Don's first year in the NHL, he was still up and down in the AHL in that season. He had a solid career, but it is premature to say he was solid at that point.

Ken Linseman was on the down swing of his career, he was having a bad season (compared to previous seasons) and didn't play much longer after that season. Linseman was also traded for Poulin, so it wasn't like they were on the team together. Also by this point Poulin simply wasn’t the same player he was a few years prior, injuries had taken a bit of a toll on him and he only had one true full season after that.

Propp was a deadline pickup whom did not re-sign the next year.

Many of the so called “top players” were far from their prime in ability, sure they were good players at one point, but not by 1990.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That was Don's first year in the NHL, he was still up and down in the AHL in that season. He had a solid career, but it is premature to say he was solid at that point.Ken Linseman was on the down swing of his career, he was having a bad season (compared to previous seasons) and didn't play much longer after that season. Linseman was also traded for Poulin, so it wasn't like they were on the team together. Also by this point Poulin simply wasn’t the same player he was a few years prior, injuries had taken a bit of a toll on him and he only had one true full season after that.

Propp was a deadline pickup whom did not re-sign the next year.

Many of the so called “top players†were far from their prime in ability, sure they were good players at one point, but not by 1990.

I really don't think Don Sweeney was solid at any point in his career.

If stats were kept for own goals, I'm sure Sweeney would be among the all-time leaders.

That said, the Bruin's were 1st overall in goals against in the 89-90 season. Gary Galley was underrated and Greg Hawgood had a career year.