Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 10

[Kyle McMahon]

Note Bruins lost their #2 center Don Gallinger in the 1948 gambling scandal.

Seems he was replaced by Paul Ronty, quite possibly an upgrade. But high end forward depth overall looks to have been a problem for those Bruins teams. Strong collection of names on defense and in net with Brimsek though. Yet oddly, it seems goal prevention was a bigger problem for them than scoring was.

 

[MXD]

Seems he was replaced by Paul Ronty, quite possibly an upgrade. But high end forward depth overall looks to have been a problem for those Bruins teams. Strong collection of names on defense and in net with Brimsek though. Yet oddly, it seems goal prevention was a bigger problem for them than scoring was.

Humm.... I'm a bit scratching my head at this post. The Bruins seems to have never been worse than league average when they had Schmidt and Brimsek, and nothing against Pat Egan and Jack Crawford who are fine players, but they're clearly a notch below what the best teams (AKA, Detroit, Montreal and Toronto) had for options.

I mean, I can be the one who is wrong.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Humm.... I'm a bit scratching my head at this post. The Bruins seems to have never been worse than league average when they had Schmidt and Brimsek, and nothing against Pat Egan and Jack Crawford who are fine players, but they're clearly a notch below what the best teams (AKA, Detroit, Montreal and Toronto) had for options.

I mean, I can be the one who is wrong.

Boston had HOFers in Fern Flaman (full time player starting in 1947-48) and Bill Quackenbush (1949-50 onward) on their blueline. Given Schmidt's reputation as one of the better defensive centres of all time, plus Brimsek in goal until the end of the decade, I was a little surprised at their poor rank in goals against during these years. Would have thought lack of scoring would be a bigger issue, but apparently not.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

In his first four playoff runs, he scored 6 points in 24 games - hugely disappointing. In fact all six of those points came in 1939, so he was held scoreless in 12 games across three other seasons. In Schmidt's defense, two of those scoreless years were 1937 and 1938 (his rookie and sophomore seasons), where he wasn't yet an established scorer (he scored 0.53 PPG in the regular season).

Wow.

In his first two playoff years, he was a teenager*. Also in his first two years, he was giving you a six game sample. [*Okay, in that second campaign, he just turned 20 before the Playoffs began- but point remains that he was 19 for the preponderance of the season, so please spare me the tendentious "fact-checks."] The third year, he has a disappointing-looking scoresheet-line... but his team won, so how badly could he have hurt, really?

Furthermore, seeing as how he's routinely listed as a "C/D" in the early Playoff years per H-R, the valid question is: how much of that time was actually spent as a Defenseman- and is it really proper to judge his scoring by the standards we'd apply to a full-time Center?

Funny thing is, I don't think I really favor Schmidt for advancement this Round. [Next Round for sure, though!] Still, to re-use an old Fischler line, Schmidt really needs an Anti-Defamation League of his own in this discussion.

Given Schmidt's reputation as one of the better defensive centres of all time, plus Brimsek in goal until the end of the decade, I was a little surprised at their poor rank in goals against during these years. Would have thought lack of scoring would be a bigger issue, but apparently not.

The Boston player(s) who blew off playing Defense will be a discussion we'll have later, I suspect. Hopefully not too soon, though.

 

[MXD]

Boston had HOFers in Fern Flaman (full time player starting in 1947-48) and Bill Quackenbush (1949-50 onward) on their blueline. Given Schmidt's reputation as one of the better defensive centres of all time, plus Brimsek in goal until the end of the decade, I was a little surprised at their poor rank in goals against during these years. Would have thought lack of scoring would be a bigger issue, but apparently not.

- Even after adding Flaman, they D-corps wasn't any better than Toronto, Montreal and Detroit. Not exactly sure as to how good Flaman was on his rookie year either
- Brimsek wasn't a Bruin anymore in 49-50, which is really when they started allowing too many goals.
- Not like I can attest to this, but I always envisionned Pat Egan as somewhat suspect defensively.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Seems he was replaced by Paul Ronty, quite possibly an upgrade. But high end forward depth overall looks to have been a problem for those Bruins teams. Strong collection of names on defense and in net with Brimsek though. Yet oddly, it seems goal prevention was a bigger problem for them than scoring was.

Should have been more expansive.

1947-48 season Gallinger and Billy Taylor, the two players involved in the gambling scandal were the Bruins 2nd and 3rd centers. Two games before the scandal broke Taylor was traded to the Rangers for Grant Warwick.

So Ronty effectively moved up two slots.

Jack Gelineau, out of McGill University replaced Brimsek after the 1948-49 season.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Jack Gelineau, out of McGill University replaced Brimsek after the 1948-49 season.

Boston's 1948-49 season: league average in Goals Against, 2nd place in regular season.

Boston's 1949-50 season: next-to-last in Goals Against, next-to-last in standings.

Ick.

 

[wetcoast]

No obligation to answer non-participants, especially those asking questions that participants know the answers by default.

Well you brought up roles on those 2 dynasties, if you can't quantify what you brought up that's up to you.

Well the participants do know alot about hockey history but there has been great divergence in all of the votes since the first round so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that participants and non participants will have the same degree of divergence in their views on richard and most all players in this round.

Habs 1956 to 1979 dynasties.

Players were selected and defined by their ability to integrate the team concept and express themselves within their role.

So a Don Marshall was expected to master the PK forward role combining it with the ability to fill-in more than adequately at all three forward positions when required.

Likewise all roster players had defined roles.

 

[Canadiens1958]

None of the participants has asked for quantification. No impact on actual voting.

 

[wetcoast]

None of the participants has asked for quantification. No impact on actual voting.

So it's not a problem of the question but the questioner?

It looks like I was wrong this forum seems to be a forum to discuss the history of hockey.

Wait no actually it is so I will carry on.

You can stand pat on your answer posted or you can provide something positive, your choice it's a free world after all.

Just for comparative purposes Forsberg was a much more important piece to his teams success with the Avs than Richard was to the Habs.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

One more thought concerning Vladislav Tretiak-

I've read that some concern was attached to the query: "how much value do we place in an individual being the Greatest Russian Goaltender of All-Time?" Maybe we could look through this window from the other side of the pane. Instead, maybe we could try asking: "how much value do we place in an individual flourishing as a Goaltender- thriving in a place that is, historically, not the most fertile ground for Goaltender Development?" Would this not give us occasion to find his International Ascendency even more admirable!?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

So it's not a problem of the question but the questioner?

It looks like I was wrong this forum seems to be a forum to discuss the history of hockey.

Wait no actually it is so I will carry on.

You can stand pat on your answer posted or you can provide something positive, your choice it's a free world after all.

Just for comparative purposes Forsberg was a much more important piece to his teams success with the Avs than Richard was to the Habs.

I'm not so sure about that. It seems doubtful that the 1960s dynasty is a dynasty without Richard. It's actually possible they don't win any of those Cups. Colorado showed the ability to survive a short term absence of Forsberg and still win the Cup with him injured.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I'm not so sure about that. It seems doubtful that the 1960s dynasty is a dynasty without Richard. It's actually possible they don't win any of those Cups. Colorado showed the ability to survive a short term absence of Forsberg and still win the Cup with him injured.

Prime example 1962. Demonstratably best 1960s Canadiens team. With app 12 games to go lose Henri Richard for the season with a broken arm

Team defence suffers, eliminated in the semi-finals.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

- Even after adding Flaman, they D-corps wasn't any better than Toronto, Montreal and Detroit. Not exactly sure as to how good Flaman was on his rookie year either
- Brimsek wasn't a Bruin anymore in 49-50, which is really when they started allowing too many goals.
- Not like I can attest to this, but I always envisionned Pat Egan as somewhat suspect defensively.

I'm not saying Boston's defense was better than any of those teams; rather, I was expressing my surprise that they were a better offensive team than they were a defensive one. I would have assumed the opposite. But it's not really a key talking point here.

Wow.

In his first two playoff years, he was a teenager*. Also in his first two years, he was giving you a six game sample. [*Okay, in that second campaign, he just turned 20 before the Playoffs began- but point remains that he was 19 for the preponderance of the season, so please spare me the tendentious "fact-checks."] The third year, he has a disappointing-looking scoresheet-line... but his team won, so how badly could he have hurt, really?

Furthermore, seeing as how he's routinely listed as a "C/D" in the early Playoff years per H-R, the valid question is: how much of that time was actually spent as a Defenseman- and is it really proper to judge his scoring by the standards we'd apply to a full-time Center?

Funny thing is, I don't think I really favor Schmidt for advancement this Round. [Next Round for sure, though!] Still, to re-use an old Fischler line, Schmidt really needs an Anti-Defamation League of his own in this discussion.The Boston player(s) who blew off playing Defense will be a discussion we'll have later, I suspect. Hopefully not too soon, though.

I'm not sure why HR has Schmidt listed as C/D. I've never come across any mention of him playing defense in any source that I can recall. Certainly possible he took the odd shift on defense, lots of players did back then, but I don't think it was anything substantial. In his early playoff years it is mentioned that he played wing on a line centered by Hooley Smith in 1938. In 1939 he is listed as the starting C for Boston in every playoff game in Trail of the Stanley Cup.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I'm not saying Boston's defense was better than any of those teams; rather, I was expressing my surprise that they were a better offensive team than they were a defensive one. I would have assumed the opposite. But it's not really a key talking point here.



I'm not sure why HR has Schmidt listed as C/D. I've never come across any mention of him playing defense in any source that I can recall. Certainly possible he took the odd shift on defense, lots of players did back then, but I don't think it was anything substantial. In his early playoff years it is mentioned that he played wing on a line centered by Hooley Smith in 1938. In 1939 he is listed as the starting C for Boston in every playoff game in Trail of the Stanley Cup.

Sometimes carry over time from playing the point on the PP since changing on the fly was very rare.

 

[wetcoast]

I'm not so sure about that. It seems doubtful that the 1960s dynasty is a dynasty without Richard. It's actually possible they don't win any of those Cups. Colorado showed the ability to survive a short term absence of Forsberg and still win the Cup with him injured.

The closet to the Habs winning without Richard is 1965-1966 playoff where he has a line of 8-1-4-5 which is good for 11th in scoring on the Habs who played 10 games.

I posted upthread where Forsberg has a very strong argument for being better than Sakic as a playoff performer during their time together on those Avs playoff teams.

Henri is 4th in points on the Habs from 65-71 playoffs for the Habs

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

In the earlier dynasty he is 4th as well. Boom Boom is first in points in that dynasty.

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

I’ll try to recreate the tables for vs. COL/DAL/DET scoring that was lost. Needless to say, he drew separation. And I also wouldn’t focus too much on Colorado winning two rounds in 2001 without him (8-4 against St. Louis and New Jersey); he was the best skater for them in the 1998-2000 and 2002 playoffs but didn’t have the secondary scoring.

COL hardly moves past LAK that year without Forsberg. LAK was in cinderella mode that year and had already upset DET the previous round. Sakic had 2 points in 5 games that series and was –2. Forsberg had 8 points and drove the offense flanked by Tanguay/Hejduk. It's not like he was Gary Suter in 89.

I think that there is a very strong argument that Forsberg has the best playoff resume this round.

 

[wetcoast]

Prime example 1962. Demonstratably best 1960s Canadiens team. With app 12 games to go lose Henri Richard for the season with a broken arm

Team defence suffers, eliminated in the semi-finals.

Well in 61,63 and 64 with Henri playing they suffer the same fate.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The closet to the Habs winning without Richard is 1965-1966 playoff where he has a line of 8-1-4-5 which is good for 11th in scoring on the Habs who played 10 games.

I posted upthread where Forsberg has a very strong argument for being better than Sakic as a playoff performer during their time together on those Avs playoff teams.

Henri is 4th in points on the Habs from 65-71 playoffs for the Habs

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

In the earlier dynasty he is 4th as well. Boom Boom is first in points in that dynasty.

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com






I think that there is a very strong argument that Forsberg has the best playoff resume this round.

I'm on the record as stating that Sakic's reputation as a playoff performer is somewhat overblown, so you don't have to convince me that Forsberg was better in the playoffs, but the fact remains that Colorado did win a Cup without him for the final two rounds. As C1958 pointed out, Montreal fizzled out in 1962 when Richard was injured. That was the last time the Bobby Hull Black Hawks were able to beat Montreal in a playoff series. The Habs were a thorn in their side after that, and the Richard line's ability to limit Hull is often cited as a key reason for that. Both Richard and Forsberg were critical to their teams' success.

Running down Richard's scoring line is old news. It has been discussed in here for years that he is a player who was much more valuable than his hockey card stats would suggest. It's easy to wonder how valuable he was individually to the 1950s dynasty, but Montreal almost won 5 Cups in a row again in the 60s with a far less formidable lineup on paper, and arguably stiffer competition as well. I believe Beliveau and Richard are the only players that were part of the whole 60s dynasty that will end up on this list.

 

[wetcoast]

I'm on the record as stating that Sakic's reputation as a playoff performer is somewhat overblown, so you don't have to convince me that Forsberg was better in the playoffs, but the fact remains that Colorado did win a Cup without him for the final two rounds. As C1958 pointed out, Montreal fizzled out in 1962 when Richard was injured. That was the last time the Bobby Hull Black Hawks were able to beat Montreal in a playoff series. The Habs were a thorn in their side after that, and the Richard line's ability to limit Hull is often cited as a key reason for that. Both Richard and Forsberg were critical to their teams' success.

Running down Richard's scoring line is old news. It has been discussed in here for years that he is a player who was much more valuable than his hockey card stats would suggest. It's easy to wonder how valuable he was individually to the 1950s dynasty, but Montreal almost won 5 Cups in a row again in the 60s with a far less formidable lineup on paper, and arguably stiffer competition as well. I believe Beliveau and Richard are the only players that were part of the whole 60s dynasty that will end up on this list.

I believe that you might be right on this point, although Lemaire is under rated historically.

But he also left the NHL after a really good season, one of the reasons the Habs faltered a bit after that 70's dynasty IMO.

I think some people might also have Serge Savard in their top 100 but I wouldn't have him in mine. Also he only played on 2 years in the playoffs on that dynasty.

The Big M also only played on that 70-71 SC team and he might be on some people's top 100 as well.

I think of Henri as being an exceptional secondary type of forward for a very long period of time and rarely the team bus driver like forsberg was.

In terms of team importance in the playoffs I would place him slightly below Malkin and his role on the Pens.

Some of that is because of how those Habs teams were structured with elite scoring forwards and Harvey for the first dynasty.

I think Boom Boom is getting underrated this round but like you mentioned earlier he was never really in consideration for best player in the world, although both his Art Ross wins were "tainted" by usurping the Habs legend in Maurice Richard.

I think some of that Montreal thinking about Boom Boom is going to cause him to drop here.

That being said I would have 3 centers ahead of Boom Boom this round.

It seems clear that Henri could drive the bus if needed, but then again if he was the guy driving the Habs bus I doubt he would have 11 SC rings so it works a bit both ways.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

One more thought concerning Vladislav Tretiak-

I've read that some concern was attached to the query: "how much value do we place in an individual being the Greatest Russian Goaltender of All-Time?" Maybe we could look through this window from the other side of the pane. Instead, maybe we could try asking: "how much value do we place in an individual flourishing as a Goaltender- thriving in a place that is, historically, not the most fertile ground for Goaltender Development?" Would this not give us occasion to find his International Ascendency even more admirable!?

My concern about Tretiak was largely answered by him being voted the best player in Europe a couple of times in the early 1980s. So even if he was worse than Czech great Jiri Holecek in the late 70s, his recognition vs ALL of Europe in the early 80s looks to be very strong.

 

[ted2019]

voted

 

[VanIslander]

You really have to play entrench-the-heroes as a Habs fan to discount Bernie's accomplishments.

My first three hockey heroes as a youngster were Habs (Dryden, Robinson, young Langway). Yet I'm ashamed of the idoltry of some, curbkick of others.

I don't wave the club's flag, but no way have I ever been called a Habs hater.

Look at Geoffrion's regular season accomplishments, playoff accomplishments, obvious 2nd fiddle right winger position to Maurice Richard on his own team, and all-time merit relative to others this very round.

Let's rectify not compound an injustice. Induct Boom Boom simply because his 7-year peak - regular AND playoffs combined - is head and shoulders above most this round.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You really have to play entrench-the-heroes as a Habs fan to discount Bernie's accomplishments.

My first three hockey heroes as a youngster were Habs (Dryden, Robinson, young Langway). Yet I'm ashamed of the idoltry of some, curbkick of others.

I don't wave the club's flag, but no way have I ever been called a Habs hater.

Look at Geoffrion's regular season accomplishments, playoff accomplishments, obvious 2nd fiddle right winger position to Maurice Richard on his own team, and all-time merit relative to others this very round.

Let's rectify not compound an injustice. Induct Boom Boom simply because his 7-year peak - regular AND playoffs combined - is head and shoulders above most this round.

Two distinct points. Geoffrion's compared to the candidates this round and Geoffrion's standing within the 1956-60 Canadiens dynasty.

Try to make the first point and you may have a point after Henri Richard since others are not eligible.

Within the dynasty. No, Frank Selke Sr. viewed Henri Richard as the most important player. Overall consensus would be Geoffrion 5 or 6 th within the dynasty.

Henri Richard: 11 Cups and maybe 'most valuable ever' in Montreal

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If you're going to only use 1 man as a source for Canadiens hockey, I'd go with Red Fisher. This is his list of the top 10 Canadiens of the half century he covered the team. Made in 2005:

1. Jean Beliveau
2. Maurice Richard
3. Guy Lafleur
4. Doug Harvey
5. Henri Richard
6. Larry Robinson
7. Bernard Geoffrion
8. Bob Gainey
9. Dickie Moore
10. Serge Savard

Unfortunately, he intentionally omitted goalies. I would have liked to see where he ranked Dryden.

Edit: ha, I posted this before I saw C1958 had just posted Red Fisher .

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I believe that you might be right on this point, although Lemaire is under rated historically.

But he also left the NHL after a really good season, one of the reasons the Habs faltered a bit after that 70's dynasty IMO.

I think some people might also have Serge Savard in their top 100 but I wouldn't have him in mine. Also he only played on 2 years in the playoffs on that dynasty.

The Big M also only played on that 70-71 SC team and he might be on some people's top 100 as well.

I think of Henri as being an exceptional secondary type of forward for a very long period of time and rarely the team bus driver like forsberg was.

In terms of team importance in the playoffs I would place him slightly below Malkin and his role on the Pens.

Some of that is because of how those Habs teams were structured with elite scoring forwards and Harvey for the first dynasty.

I think Boom Boom is getting underrated this round but like you mentioned earlier he was never really in consideration for best player in the world, although both his Art Ross wins were "tainted" by usurping the Habs legend in Maurice Richard.

I think some of that Montreal thinking about Boom Boom is going to cause him to drop here.

That being said I would have 3 centers ahead of Boom Boom this round.

It seems clear that Henri could drive the bus if needed, but then again if he was the guy driving the Habs bus I doubt he would have 11 SC rings so it works a bit both ways.

A key difference between Richard and Forsberg. If Richard retired in the mid 60's, or had a clearly defined peak and wasn't as good before or after, he probably isn't up for discussion right now. But my impression is that he basically came as advertised for 20 years. He was still an important piece even as late as the 1973 Stanley Cup. He played almost twice as many games as Forsberg, and in an era of shorter schedules.

On Lemaire: I agree he's underrated, but he wasn't part of the entire 60s dynasty, only 1968 and 1969.