Worst era in NHL History?

[Resolute]

From 1980-1989, hockey in the 80's sucked

Seconded. From an overall quality of play standpoint, the late 70s to about 1990 was the weakest and worst the league has seen. The fall of the Iron Curtain, and later the growth of the US hockey program has led to a massive influx of talent into the NHL.

 

[God Bless Canada]

First eight to 10 years of the league. Not because of evolution, but because of the stiff competition from the western leagues. The NHL did not automatically become the best hockey league in the planet from the moment of inception. Those western leagues were really strong, and sometimes the better league, from 1917 to 1926.

The league was diluted in the last three years of the Second World War (especially the last two years), and it was still a little diluted in the first year after the war, but a three or four year stretch shouldn't be considered an era.

 

[MXD]

I think the mid 50s and most of the 60s were terrible.

Yes, there were so many great players and great teams, Original 6, great rivalries, etc.

But it was very low scoring, and most of all, NO DRAMA.

A team from the U.S. won only once in nearly 15 years, and from the mid 50s through the 1960s, Montreal won the Cup nearly every damn year.

Back then, there was no playoff suspense and drama of today- you knew Montreal was going to hoist the Cup long before the playoffs started.

What was the point of getting all excited when you knew who was going to win?

Seriously... What THIS point has to do with the fact that a 15-year stretch might be the most boring era?
I mean... Nobody brought up the point the last 15 years were boring because there weren't any canadian team that won the cup... There ARE other reasons why the last 15 years weren't exactly exciting, but no Canadian winner isn't one of the them

 

[yada]

For me it would be 98-04, rangers were the laughing stock of the league

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Seriously... What THIS point has to do with the fact that a 15-year stretch might be the most boring era?
I mean... Nobody brought up the point the last 15 years were boring because there weren't any canadian team that won the cup... There ARE other reasons why the last 15 years weren't exactly exciting, but no Canadian winner isn't one of the them

When there are only 2 Canadian teams in the league, the fact that they were winning every championship is what made it boring. At least, that's what I assume he meant.

 

[Dave is a killer]

This current era ... no rivalries ... lifeless

 

[Canucks5551]

how about the 30's anyone? Those were the lowest scoring eras of all time.

 

[Vitkovice*]

This current era ... no rivalries ... lifeless

I agree. Despite all the grabbing and hooking and that trap thing, I would say the second half of the nineties was still pretty exciting compared with today. More hearts were in it. You actually don't need ten goals for a game to be exciting. I hated 05/06 beacause if you looked beyond those numberoids, the game itself wasn't very funny to watch at all.

By the time Jagr landed in DC, which seemed almost unnatural, you already knew the league was getting shallow and numb.

 

[Macman]

In terms of a pure talent standpoint, probably the 1970's.
Expansion + WHL + few europeans = diluted NHL.

You got it. With the exception of the Canadiens, the hockey was pretty much terrible. Slow. Terrible passing. Dump and chase. Yuck.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Easy.

1995-2004. Huge goaltending equipment, clutching and grabbing and the trap all suck.

Things are a little better now but the goaltending equipment is still too freaking big.

Agreed, at least in my lifetime. I'm not commenting on anything prior to about 1975.

I'm not knocking the talent level, but the way the game was being played was extremely boring for the most part. Even the Olympic games and World Cups, where they had best on best tournaments, werent' nearly as exciting as the Canada Cups in the 70's and 80's.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

You got it. With the exception of the Canadiens, the hockey was pretty much terrible. Slow. Terrible passing. Dump and chase. Yuck.

I take it you never saw the Bruins, Flyers, Sabres, Isles, and yes even the late 70's Leafs, play. If you think the hockey those teams played was terrible, you need a lesson in Hockey 101.

 

[Slapshooter]

Thats why i think the only solution to scoring is the olympic sized ice surface.

That would be terrible decision. European and international hockey is actually rather low scoring since trapping works equally well on the big ice. Russian Super league is considered the 2nd best league in the world(in talent wise) and reports say it's full of 1-0 and 2-1 games. Like Swedes, Finns and Czechs have showed in numerous international tournaments, the big ice does not favor higher scoring at all. It's all D crap with sissy no-contact play.

The only big difference NHL would see with the large rinks would be much less hitting.

 

[Macman]

I take it you never saw the Bruins, Flyers, Sabres, Isles, and yes even the late 70's Leafs, play. If you think the hockey those teams played was terrible, you need a lesson in Hockey 101.

No need to be so condescending. I saw it all so I think I'll skip class, thanks. I might have exagerrated slightly, but for every decent team you can name from that time, I can list more terrible ones, including the Sabres, Leafs and Isles from early in the decade. The talent pool was ridiculously diluted by overexpansion -- a fact the touring Soviet teams proved many times.

 

[Stephen]

Late '90s to early 00's. When the trap slowed down the game so.

Definitely the worst.

Unlike today when we are watching so many young stars break into the NHL, most of the picks from the mid 1990s went to garbage and a lot of stars started retiring around that time too. Scoring was down, the games were not entertaining and there was a lack of good name players.

 

[Snap Wilson]

The '70s was a fine era of hockey. The Sabres, Flyers and Isles became competitive fairly quickly because there was so much unused talent in the league. Even the Atlanta Flames finished the decade with a winning record. There were a dozen teams in the decade that had eight or more players score 20 or more goals and four teams that had nine-plus players.

Of course you can find a bad team for every good one. For every team that wins, one loses. Pretty much the same in every decade.

There may have been stronger talent during the late nineties/early zeros, but that doesn't mean much if players don't have as much opportunity to exhibit it. Don't get me wrong, I've pretty much enjoyed every era of hockey, and I don't have anything against low-scoring games, but some separation of talent is a good thing. The ten years between lockouts, we didn't have enough of it.