I don't get why the Broad Street Bullies are so celebrated

[John Flyers Fan]

The last thing the "Broad Street Bullies" are is celebrated, at least outside of Philadelphia.

To hear most tell it, the only way they won those Stanley cups is by beating up the entire league.

You'll get a Bobby Clarke and/or a Bernie Parent mention, but that's about it, and even then they're usually back-handed compliments. Not that only three men in history have won more than Clarke's 3 Hart trophies. No other player has won back to back Conn Smythe's like Parent, during what was it arguably the finest back-to-back seasons any goalie has ever had.

Never any mention of Bill Barber (HoFer), Rick MacLeish or Reggie Leach.

Fred Shero has been denied his deserved place in the HHoF.

Never a mention of how good their penalty killing was, that allowed them to play that fearless style, and not being afraid of having to kill more penalties than anyone else, year after year.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

As a quick aside:

PIM totals for the 3 Flyers Cup teams 74-76: 1750, 1969 and 1980

PIM totals for the Oilers and Flames Cup finalists from 83-90: 1771, 1577, 1567, 2297 1721, 2173, 2444, 2046

 

[Stray Wasp]

But they were also handed a bit of a crappy card. It's no coincidence that of the eight teams added in 1967 and 1970 only two have won the Cup and the Flyers were the first to do so by about 20 years.

The Flyers simply made the best of what they had and won Cups that way. The success spoke for itself and really it's a unique phenomenon of the immediate post-expansion era and a unique combination of players. I think if anything the vilification of the Flyers was at least partially related to the fact that these were brash "new kids on the block" who didn't hesitate to throw their weight around. They simply lacked legitimacy in the eyes of a hockey establishment closely attached to the Original Six teams and thus it was easy to vilify them to an extent no other team had ever been vilified. The Flyers, instead of apologizing and changing their ways, took the label and made it their own and that's a big reason for the legend of the Broad Street Bullies.

Though their methods were sometimes indefensible, I think this is a crucial point. It shouldn't be forgotten how stingy expansion drafts always are when it comes to distributing talent. It's hypocritical to demand that a rapidly-assembled expansion team play like the Canadiens of 56-60. The truth is that the Flyers' success in forging a Cup-winning team so quickly put some of their older, supposedly more prestigious rivals to shame.

There's something to gain from embracing a brutal image. Its been observed elsewhere that Larry Robinson became so feared that opponents often wouldn't dare challenge him at all. My memory may be hazy, but I'm not so sure that intimidation in hockey was invented by the Flyers in 1967 anyway.

The Flyers got the absolute most out of the talent they had. brianscot is right to emphasise that their defence lacked an Orr, Park, Potvin or Robinson. How much flowing hockey could a team have played with that constraint? Yet they won two cups. Hockey is a team game and I'd argue that any team able to win by transcending the sum of its parts deserves huge credit, no matter their flaws.

 

[straka91*]

The B.S.B. are a lot like Pronger in the sense that they were/are very good. But get shunned because of the way they do it.

I think their style is very fun to watch and something different than the usual hockey styles Ive grown accustomed to.

 

[GKJ]

That exactly is what is wrong here. I have a problem with glorifying clearly criminal acts (Clarke on Kharlamov etc.). This is only a sport, not war. Giving your all to win is way better than doing anything to win. I think there's a huge difference between the two statements. Not saying that 70ies Flyers only did the dirty part, they could play too and kudos for that.

When you're a winner, you don't really care what anyone else thinks about how you got there.

If you really believe that then we can scrap the rulebook because there's no point in having regulations and penalties. Let them do what they want, anything goes.

Could anyone possibly want that?

Well, the league re-wrote the entire rule book because of the Flyers.

 

[Big Phil]

They won two Cups in a row and reached the final three years in a row. No easy task. They have three Hall of Famers and a coach who should be in there too. They also had Leach and MacLeish who had glimpses of HHOF talent.

Lastly, regardless of whether or not you liked them the Flyers drew a crowd. People hated them, but they'd pay to watch them when they visited your hometown

 

[RorschachWJK]

When you're a winner, you don't really care what anyone else thinks about how you got there.

This was not about how the winners feel. This was about how the public feels.

 

[Hanji]

When you're a winner, you don't really care what anyone else thinks about how you got there.

Yeah, tell that to Barry Bonds right now.

Seriously, if winners can live with themselves knowing they had to cheat or resort to dirty tactics to win, more power to them. But in the court of public opinion, rarely (if ever) do the ends justify the means in athletics.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

If you consider what Clarke did to the Russian gentleman a criminal act, you are watching the wrong sport. Because pretty much every pre-60s great would be a criminal.

 

[seventieslord]

An unfortunate thing about the 70's Flyers is that the goon imagery tends to gloss over some very good hockey players.
.

Absolutely. People forget sometimes when talking about the BSB, is that you still have to outscore your opponent to win a hockey game, and they did that with remarkable regularity for a few seasons.

I think the real question is rather why that Philly team is treated like the black sheep of hockey history.

You are absolutely right. Exhibit A: Shero not being in the HHOF.

 

[VMBM]

What did Clarke do to Kharlamov in the 1976 game between the Red Army and the Flyers??? Except that he played much better of course...

No need to bring the 1972 Summit series into the discussion.

 

[shazariahl]

I don't see why their dirty victory over the Soviets is celebrated either. It was really shameful.

I appreciated the Broad Street Bullies as a kid because they were so tough. But now as an adult when I've had the chance to rewatch this game, I'm filled with a kind of revulsion. They weren't interested in playing hockey, they just wanted to injure the soviet players. It makes me wonder how I would view the rest of their games, if they were as accessable to watch.

 

[GKJ]

Yeah, tell that to Barry Bonds right now.

Seriously, if winners can live with themselves knowing they had to cheat or resort to dirty tactics to win, more power to them. But in the court of public opinion, rarely (if ever) do the ends justify the means in athletics.

Sorry, can you re-fresh me as to when Barry Bonds won the World Series?

The court of public opinion is just that. The public. It's easy to vilify people for their accomplishments as they sit behind a computer. The Flyers exploited every advantage they could find. This is no different than what is done today.


People who think the Flyers were just gooning the Soviets around need to go back and re-watch the game. The Soviets didn't like getting banged around, and weren't used to it, and thus didn't want to play anymore.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

The most laughable thing about people, especially those that didn't watch hockey in the 70's or 80's talk about how bad the Flyers were, is how much more physical the game is played today.

Yes, there were more fights back in the 70's and 80's (even more so in the 80's) but Danny Briere plays a more physical game than Gary Dornoeffer or Bob Saleski ever did.

 

[Rob]

Van Impe's elbow to the back of the head of Kharlmov. Can't blame the Red Army for leaving the ice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGOxVBG4bfk&feature=fvwrel

 

[clefty]

In 25 years Matt Cooke's going to be a beloved cult hockey icon, I guess.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Van Impe's elbow to the back of the head of Kharlmov. Can't blame the Red Army for leaving the ice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGOxVBG4bfk&feature=fvwrel

If Van Impe was playing today, Cooke would just be a sideshow. I hated, hated, hated him, and waited forever for someone to beat the snot out of him. Lot of peple tried, but other Flyers and/or officials would always get in the way. Bobby Nystrom eventually got him to some extent... I will always love Nystrom for that.

Anyway, as nasty as the BSB were, they were a great team with some great players (and a great coach), and like any great team, they made the most of the game/rules as it/they existed at the time.

Clarke and Parent can play on my all-time team any time they want.

 

[Random Forest]

The era that they played in was big and bad. They were just the biggest and the baddest.

That is why. They were the most hard ass team in a hard ass era. They took the game as it was being played and took it to the next level. They won games because of it, and any team that wins games so convincingly, by any means necessary, will always be immortalized like they are.

 

[SealsFan]

You had to be there. The mythos surrounding them was something that would often have a weaker opponent psyched out before the game even started. And the Fred Shero "fog" just added to the mystique.

Perhaps the most surprising thing is that reviewing their two Cup seasons game-by-game at flyershistory.com, you expect to find several major penalties in every game, and it's just not the case. Despite Schultz's astronomical penalty minutes, there are stretches of games where the Flyers had no more than a handful of minor penalties. Were they any less intimidating in those games? I think it was more a matter of the opponents giving the Flyer tough guys a wide berth, not wishing to tangle. In some cases, you had top teams like Montreal who were able to dictate their own style of play and not get dragged into Flyers-style hockey. It was just a great time to be a hockey fan!

 

[doakacola*]

They were a team of the era. There was a lot of Rock-Em-Sock-Em play back then and they out bullied even the Big Bad Bruins more times than not.

They were swashbucklers led by Bobby Clarke, a player you loved to hate and wished he was on your team.

They were big, mean as well as talented.....Gary Dornhoefer, Rick MacLeish, Bill Barber, Ross Lonsberry, Dave "The Hammer" Schultz, Orest Kindrachuk, Andre 'Moose' Dupont, Jim and Joe Watson, Ed Van Impe, Bob "Battleship" Kelly, Reggie Leach, Bill Clement, Bernie Parent, Don Saleski, Barry Ashbee, Doug Favell, Mel Bridgeman, Wayne Stephenson....

This was a loaded team for a good stretch of the 70's.

No, the 73-74 and 74-75 teams were not big at all. They had one top 10 forward over 6:01, just one. They were surely tough but thats a total myth they were big at all.

 

[doakacola*]

If you really believe that then we can scrap the rulebook because there's no point in having regulations and penalties. Let them do what they want, anything goes.

Could anyone possibly want that?

He's a Flyers regular poster/mod what would you expect?

 

[Bryz4shiz]

No, the 73-74 and 74-75 teams were not big at all. They had one top 10 forward over 6:01, just one. They were surely tough but thats a total myth they were big at all.

How many players league wide were over 6'1''?

 

[doakacola*]

How many players league wide were over 6'1''?

I checked the 73-74 & 74-75 rosters of just Vancouver, Buffalo & Boston. Buffalo
had 2 forwards over 6:01 and Vancouver had 1, same as Philly. Boston had two in Hodge & Sanderson. I posit the majority of teams in the NHL were not materially different than Philly up front or on D in terms of actual height. I'll scan some more rosters and let you know. Buffalo also had 2 dmen over 6:01 . Vancouver had a big D at the time in Dailey, Guevremont & Korab at 6:05, 6:03 & 6:03. Buffalo had Hajt & Schoenfeld over 6:01.

Philly didn't have one D man over 6:01 and guys like Jim Watson, Van Impe & Ashbee were about 5:10-5:11.

You seem to be saying I'm claiming they were "small" I'm not they were probably average for the entire league upfront and on D.

They sure weren't "average" in toughness though.

 

[GKJ]

Van Impe's elbow to the back of the head of Kharlmov. Can't blame the Red Army for leaving the ice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGOxVBG4bfk&feature=fvwrel

Yeah, they stood for good hockey, and left the ice. When no NHL team would ever have the cajoles to do so.

Anyways, he never got him in the head. I believe even the Russians later agreed that he didn't, and Van Impe discussed his later as well.


You can stop your deliberate hate-on for the Flyers, because you're being proven incorrect at every turn.

I appreciated the Broad Street Bullies as a kid because they were so tough. But now as an adult when I've had the chance to rewatch this game, I'm filled with a kind of revulsion. They weren't interested in playing hockey, they just wanted to injure the soviet players. It makes me wonder how I would view the rest of their games, if they were as accessable to watch.

People love to forget this: Fred Shero studied Soviet hockey. When he came into the league, the Flyers had trouble getting his system, because no one was used to Shero's system - being that it was the mostly the same one the Soviets played and all (slightly altered). Very early in their relationship, Clarke was very against it. Shero hadn't revealed just where exactly he got his strategy from until the team came to him deciding that some of the drills they were running were impossible, when Shero told them that he saw it run perfectly by teenagers in the Soviet Union.

The biggest reason the Flyers beat the Soviets' system was because they played it themselves and knew how to beat it. They weren't going to let the pace of the game be dictated to them, and because most of the Soviets were robots to the system, didn't know what to do.

 

[doakacola*]

Yeah, they stood for good hockey, and left the ice. When no NHL team would ever have the cajoles to do so.

Anyways, he never got him in the head. I believe even the Russians later agreed that he didn't, and Van Impe discussed his later as well.


You can stop your deliberate hate-on for the Flyers, because you're being proven incorrect at every turn.




People love to forget this: Fred Shero studied Soviet hockey. When he came into the league, the Flyers had trouble getting his system, because no one was used to Shero's system - being that it was the mostly the same one the Soviets played and all (slightly altered). Very early in their relationship, Clarke was very against it. Shero hadn't revealed just where exactly he got his strategy from until the team came to him deciding that some of the drills they were running were impossible, when Shero told them that he saw it run perfectly by teenagers in the Soviet Union.

The biggest reason the Flyers beat the Soviets' system was because they played it themselves and knew how to beat it. They weren't going to let the pace of the game be dictated to them, and because most of the Soviets were robots to the system, didn't know what to do.

Oh please stop the nonsense. Shero incorporated a few Soviet training styles, but the Flyers played a classic NA style of hockey. Saleski, Shultz, Kelly, Van Imp, Dupont & even Gary Dornhoefer were completley lacking in the requisite skill to ever effectively play that style of game. The Flyers rode suberb goaltending from Parent,
effective scoring by Macleish, Barber, Clarke & Leach and the intimadation of Schultz & Co. to win 2 Cups. Once Parent went down the Broad Street Bullies weren't a threat again. Boston owned them in 1977 and 1978. Stop making crap up.