Where do the '70-72 Bruins rate in your mind?

Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by Big Phil, Dec 6, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. Big Phil

    Big Phil Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Messages:
    27,334
    Likes Received:
    485
    Trophy Points:
    169
    In no particular order you have to have the '75-79 and '55-60 Habs in front of them. Plus the 80s Oilers. No question. But then it gets tough. Do they fall in fourth place? Or do the 80s Isles, or '90s Pens or even the 73-75 Flyers knock them off? Not to mention the Habs of the mid to late 60s.

    I'll put them fifth personally. I cant put them ahead of the Isles. But I dont think the 60s habs or the Pens or the Flyers would beat them. yes Philly beat the Bruins in '74 i know that and the Bruins only one two Cups in three years not even two in a row, but take that '71 Bruins teams, to me the best team that never won a Cup. If they win that its three in a row. And they could have easily won it '74, so that's 4/5. This is why I put them 5th. Keep in mind its not who was the better dynasty, because they only won twice, but its how good they were when they won the Cup.

    1970: 99 Points, tied for 1st, won Cup
    1971: 121 Points, 1st place, next closest was NYR at 109
    1972: 119 Points, 1st place, won Cup

    This is a team that really should have won more Cups. The WHA helped tear this team apart after '72. But the names that do this roster are impressive. Orr, Esposito, Bucyk, Cashman, Cheevers, Hodge, Mckenzie, Stanfield, even back up goalie Eddie Johnston was impressive.

    Look at '71 for instance. they scored 399 goals, had the top foru scorers Espo, Orr, Buckyk, Hodge. And had 7/11 of the top scorers. Unfortunately they never won the Cup.

    But in '72 they were just as good with 119 points. had Orr and Espo leading the NHl in points and beat the rangers in the finals, the next best team. They are #5 on my list.
     
  2. Sens Rule

    Sens Rule Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    23,032
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    116
    I don't know where the early 70's Bruins rate but they were certainly dominant. I was born after that time but I read about them alot. Books like 'The big bad Bruins' and such. I can't see how you would rate them higher than teams with 3 Cups though. They could be the best team with only 2 Cups consecutive or not. But even then you have the early 90's Penguins and the mid 70's Flyers.

    Still regardless of where they rate all-time they are Legendary and will never be forgotten as a great team. If the WHA hadn't stripped them of Cheevers and other core players they could have won another cup or 2 as well.
     
  3. Rumblick

    Rumblick Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,073
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Glorified Desk Jockey
    Location:
    I - 78
    In 70 and 72 they won the Cup. In 71 and 73 they went out in the first round. It's too narrow a scope to claim top team status. Dynasties win numerous times over their era (Canadiens, Oilers, Islanders, et al.). Lump the Bruins in with the Red Wings of the mid-90's, the Pens circa 90-91, and a host of other short-term very good teams. They were great from October to April, but truly GREAT teams make their marks in May.
     
  4. Psycho Papa Joe

    Psycho Papa Joe Porkchop Hoser

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    23,349
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Forensic Accountant
    Location:
    Cesspool, Ontario
    Home Page:
    Habs Late 50's
    Habs Late 70's
    Oilers Late 80's
    Isles Early 80's
    Leafs Late 40's
    Habs Late 60's early 70's
    Leafs Mid 60's
    Wings Early 50's
    Pens Early 90's
    Bruins Early 70's
     
  5. Sens Rule

    Sens Rule Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    23,032
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    116
    Everyone has forgotten the early 50's Wings. They won 3 cups and were first place for I think 7 straight years.
     
  6. doc5hole

    doc5hole Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    The 67-72 Bruins are like the great rock band that broke up too soon. Discipline was not their forte once they'd won it in 70 - BTW, let's not forget in '69 they were right there with Montreal and lost Game 6 of the Cup semifinal in double overtime.
    Had Harry Sinden coached the 70-71 Bruins, there's no way they lose to Montreal. TJ left it totally up to the players, and they needed a more hands-on coach against a more disciplined team with a hot goalie. The players took it on themselves to be better in 71-72, which they were even though the record/stats were a little more gaudy in 70-71.
    They were ravaged in 72-73, first and foremost by the WHA (Cheevers, Sanderson, Green, McKenzie) and simultaneous expansion (Bouchard, Westfall). Plus, Orr got a late start after knee surgery and Espo got knocked out of the Rangers series with a knee by wrecking crew Ron Harris. By the end of that season, Orr couldn't even skate backwards anymore and was puck stripping as defense. Park pointed it out to Emile Francis and they did a good job exploiting Don Awrey's overly aggressive help. Jacques Plante looked great when he joined the team late in the season but he bombed out in the playoffs.
    Re: 73-74, Bucyk still says Parent is THE reason the Flyers won, but I thought Gilbert was great as well and that the Bruins were just further removed from the team that had won it all in '70 and '72. Guidolin was a good coach, but Orr was hurting big time and the Flyers were a hungry bunch.

    It's so fruitless to go back and say what if - as if everyone else doesn't have their own what-ifs ... who's to say. Only thing I'm sure of is the Bruins, probably more than any team in the modern era, did not realize its potential in terms of dynasty. You could also say the same for Pittsburgh which, ironically and finally, had a completely dominant regular season in 92-93, only to lose to the Turgeon-less Islanders. Very weird.

    You gotta give the Canadiens credit for one thing, they not only were great when they should have been, they were great at winning the Cups that other teams seemed destined for ('71, '86, '93).

    The Bruins had the opportunity to be greater than they ultimately were in the scope of things. But I've never seen a team that exuded so many different qualities all at the same time. It's no wonder they owned New England from 69-72. The Islanders are probably the team most like them in diverse make-up. The Bruins' legacy from their glory days is still visible although not having won it all since has obscured things for modern fans and especially Boston sports fans without any affinity for the Bruins. But, for those of us who grew up skating on the ponds in New England, we never lose sight of the fact that so many rinks were built in their wake. Theirs is a phenomenon of lasting community impact few franchises in any sport could ever match.
     
  7. John Flyers Fan

    John Flyers Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    22,416
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    With the Flyers winning two in a row and going to the Finals the following year, IMO they deserve to be ranked above the Bruins. Very close however.
     
  8. I would rank the early '70s Bruins a little higher than most posters. They had great talent but liked to party a little too much also. If not for that I am certain they would have won a couple more cups.

    Overall, I would put them a 6th. They were a treat to watch back then.
     
  9. arrbez

    arrbez bad chi

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,278
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Toronto
    Everyone forgets about the Leafs dynasties as well, don't know why :dunno:
     
  10. Lowetide

    Lowetide Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    13,281
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Well they kept kicking goalies to the curb. Lost Parent and Favell in the expansion draft in 1967, which is fine because Cheevers and Johnston were a solid tandem. However, when Cheevers jumpted to the WHA and Johnston got too old they didn't have Daniel Bouchard around because they lost him in the 1972 expansion draft.

    And Daniel Bouchard was a good goalie. They had some other things going on too, but you could write a book about Milt Schmidt and the 1967, 1970 and 1972 expansion draft and how it affected the Bruins.

    They got killed.
     
  11. Gerry4001

    Gerry4001 Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto
    My favourite team ever. Lots of personality, great to watch, and they had an identity, a team style. Nothing like the current Bruins.

    Unfortunately, didn't win as many Cups as they were suppose to. They should have won 5 or even 7 cups and be the best team ever.

    Orr said they weren't disciplined enough.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"