HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The History of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=126)
-   -   Who would still be a star? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1707817)

BluejacketNut 07-11-2014 05:37 PM

Who would still be a star?
 
Im watching the 79 Finals on NHL Network and it got me wondering who from past hockey history could legitimately compete and be a star in this day in age. The difference between the goalie generations is undeniable, from a talent standpoint and most importantly the equipment they wear. The training and lifestyle is vastly different from the players of the past. I have to think there were a lot of stars that benefited from terrible goaltending and overall bad teams. I've seen some goals scored in the past that I actually think i could have done quite easily :laugh:

So who from the past would still be a star in today's NHL? Make up a team that you think could actually compete skill wise with the today's NHL

Edit:I guess i'm looking from say the 70-80's

AwesomeMatthews 07-11-2014 05:59 PM

Almost all of them? The guys from the past were still born to play hockey, give them modern equipment and training and they would still be NHL caliber.

Except Maurice Richard because the habs are simply awful.

Art of Sedinery 07-11-2014 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundinology (Post 87956419)
Almost all of them? The guys from the past were still born to play hockey, give them modern equipment and training and they would still be NHL caliber.

Except Maurice Richard because the habs are simply awful.

Exactly. Especially the guys that had hands and brains.

Leto93 07-12-2014 12:13 AM

I think Larry Robinson's career would have played out just as well, if not even better. Think Shea Weber but a better skater and better special teams play.

Big Phil 07-12-2014 12:21 AM

I never really understand these types of questions. Watch Jean Beliveau play. Pretend he has better skates, better stick, and he was born in 1987. He would know better trick shots, better plays, he'd have experimented with different things in practice. But watch him from the 1950s and worse equipment or not, he still plays the game of hockey very well and stood out then. He'd be the same today.

Regardless of what era it is, there are players that are good players and are effective even if we don't know why they were or even if they didn't look like it on the ice.

Lastly, when you see players like Gretzky and Lemieux that were good for a long, long time even as they got older despite the game changes, isn't this enough evidence of such things? Gretzky wins the Hart in 1980. Gretzky leads the NHL in assists in 1998. That's 18 years with many changes in between. A great player adapts, heck, normal players adapt. Lemieux was great nearly 20 years apart. Howe was great 20 years apart. Beliveau pretty close. Bourque, Lidstrom, etc. The same players great then would be great today.

VanIslander 07-12-2014 04:25 AM

Who wouldn't still be? THAT's the more interesting argument to be made.

Tiger. Loved the guy, but... now way today. In 1979 he was in the middle of a six-year 40-point average per season stretch in which he also averaged 300 PIMs per season. Nowadays he hasn't the speed or defensive responsibility to handle more than fourth line part-time agitator status (no possibility of getting anywhere near 40 points per season) and his propensity for fighting and crossing the line all over the ice wouldn't be tolerated by coaches today. Fans and teammates would love'm in the ECHL or at best on a scrappy AHL squad.

http://cdn.nhl.com/canucks/images/up...umb_061608.jpg

alko 07-12-2014 06:30 AM

Peter Stastny said in one interview, that he has to wonder, when he sees the clips from NHL in 80s. Today game is far far better as it was in that times.

The Panther 07-12-2014 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alko (Post 87969065)
Peter Stastny said in one interview, that he has to wonder, when he sees the clips from NHL in 80s. Today game is far far better as it was in that times.

Equipment and players' conditioning is far, far better. But the game is not. Unless by "better", he meant more boring.

BluejacketNut 07-12-2014 08:12 AM

Well Phil, I never had a chance to watch him and you dont see many videos of them, hence the conversation. And you cannot deny that the goaltending was flat out pathetic at times, so there we plenty of goals that would never have been scored today.

BluejacketNut 07-12-2014 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanIslander (Post 87968401)
Who wouldn't still be? THAT's the more interesting argument to be made.

Tiger. Loved the guy, but... now way today. In 1979 he was in the middle of a six-year 40-point average per season stretch in which he also averaged 300 PIMs per season. Nowadays he hasn't the speed or defensive responsibility to handle more than fourth line part-time agitator status (no possibility of getting anywhere near 40 points per season) and his propensity for fighting and crossing the line all over the ice wouldn't be tolerated by coaches today. Fans and teammates would love'm in the ECHL or at best on a scrappy AHL squad.

http://cdn.nhl.com/canucks/images/up...umb_061608.jpg

True, maybe the better question

Brooklanders* 07-12-2014 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundinology (Post 87956419)
Almost all of them? The guys from the past were still born to play hockey, give them modern equipment and training and they would still be NHL caliber.

Except Maurice Richard because the habs are simply awful.

This is the answer. All them dudes. Let's not forget today's players benefit from advanced and modern skates and other equipment. In addition better ice surface.

vadim sharifijanov 07-12-2014 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluejacketNut (Post 87969847)
Well Phil, I never had a chance to watch him and you dont see many videos of them, hence the conversation. And you cannot deny that the goaltending was flat out pathetic at times, so there we plenty of goals that would never have been scored today.

you take different kinds of shots during different eras. in the 80s michel goulet skates down the wing and rifles one down low from the bottom of the circle because goalie pads are smaller and they generally don't go down. back then, that was a high percentage play. he'd be stupid to cut in on the defenseman and try to roof it from the hash marks a la jeff carter today. that play decreases his likelihood of getting a clean shot off and a stand up goalie is just going to catch it most of the time anyway.

michel goulet today would never take that 80s shot. but with his hands, he'd find other ways to score.

Copmuter* 07-12-2014 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Panther (Post 87969425)
Equipment and players' conditioning is far, far better. But the game is not. Unless by "better", he meant more boring.

I take "better" to mean "more challenging"

Ogie Goldthorpe 07-12-2014 11:12 PM

Good players would always be good players given a level playing field. Sure the raw numbers would change, but ability of a top level athlete to separate himself from the field remains the same.

Even those "pathetic" goalies of the 80's would be better today, given modern equipment and training... and today's "awesome" goalies would perform much like "pathetic" 80's goalies given the same equipment and training.

The Tiger Williams argument is an interesting one, though. There are certain types of players that have become obsolete... the Schultz, Durbano, Williams type. But, still, these guys weren't chumps either (well, maybe Durbano was), they just played a certain style of game that was successful at the time. OTOH, Schultz scored 20 goals one season... and Williams 35... they weren't total John Scotts... they had talent, and would probably have been smart enough to be able to change their game to suit the current times. They'd probably still be total *******s, but their PIM's would probably be less than half, and they'd be agitating 3rd or 4th liners. Think Chris Neil or Antoine Roussel

The guys you wouldn't see so much of are the mediocre to poor Canadian players that filled out the bottom end of a most of rosters... the Ralph Klassen's, for lack of a better example. Despite expansion, guys like that all gave way to Europeans with higher basic skill levels... the Jannik Hansen's. That's the difference... not the quality of the good guys, the quality of the bad guys.

Darth Yoda 07-13-2014 04:23 AM

Tiger Williams is a bad example of a player that would not be able to adjust to todays game, if he's not really unintelligent he could refrain from some of that fighting. He could actually play the game a bit so i dont know why he is singled out amongst fighters from the past. I would think a Matt Cooke with a somewhat better offensive game, which is a borderline top-6 player. He'd be a great pest, and on the contrary to Cooke he would take more of his own battles.

begbeee 07-13-2014 08:43 AM

Certainly there are types of players in the past that actually can't compete in today's NHL. On the other hand, nowadays there are players who would not make it from juniors back then, just because they would be simply killed.

BenchBrawl 07-13-2014 09:14 AM

The stars would remain stars.

Actually the OP mentioned the 70s and 80s , in this case the stars would elevate today's elite.Guys like Gretzky , Lemieux , Lafleur , Potvin , Orr etc would all probably be the best player in the league today.

blogofmike 07-13-2014 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Yoda (Post 87994723)
Tiger Williams is a bad example of a player that would not be able to adjust to todays game, if he's not really unintelligent he could refrain from some of that fighting. He could actually play the game a bit so i dont know why he is singled out amongst fighters from the past. I would think a Matt Cooke with a somewhat better offensive game, which is a borderline top-6 player. He'd be a great pest, and on the contrary to Cooke he would take more of his own battles.

Perhaps. Sprague Cleghorn and Eddie Shore also couldn't play today. They'd be in jail or suspended more often than they'd dress for games.

Hardyvan123 07-13-2014 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jafar (Post 87996805)
The stars would remain stars.

Actually the OP mentioned the 70s and 80s , in this case the stars would elevate today's elite.Guys like Gretzky , Lemieux , Lafleur , Potvin , Orr etc would all probably be the best player in the league today.

Or they wouldn't.

Simply a circle game with very little objective to drive any discussion.

Big Phil 07-13-2014 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluejacketNut (Post 87969847)
Well Phil, I never had a chance to watch him and you dont see many videos of them, hence the conversation. And you cannot deny that the goaltending was flat out pathetic at times, so there we plenty of goals that would never have been scored today.

But things get offset because the sticks weren't curved, the skates weren't as good either. Goalies still had tons of shutouts in Beliveau's day, so it wasn't all bad was it? But I urge you to watch a guy like Beliveau. Or watch someone like Harvey or Horton or players like that who you know very well would translate into being great today also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alko (Post 87969065)
Peter Stastny said in one interview, that he has to wonder, when he sees the clips from NHL in 80s. Today game is far far better as it was in that times.

Peter Stastny is closing in on 60 years old. Is there any 60 year old man who wouldn't be intimidated by the speed of the game today? Put it this way, when Stastny arrived into his first NHL dressing room in 1980 he opened the door and thought he was in a room of bodybuilders. This is a 24 year old guy thinking this. Obviously he did fine, but when an older player talks about how they couldn't do what they do in today's game most of it comes from the fact that they aren't their 25 year old selves anymore and don't move nearly as fast as they used to.

BenchBrawl 07-14-2014 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 (Post 88016687)
Or they wouldn't.

They would.

jkrx 07-14-2014 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 (Post 88016687)
Or they wouldn't.

Simply a circle game with very little objective to drive any discussion.

Why wouldn't they? Several of the yesterday adapted to changes in the game. Gordie Howe being prime example who stayed relevant for 5 decades.

Hardyvan123 07-14-2014 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkrx (Post 88023177)
Why wouldn't they? Several of the yesterday adapted to changes in the game. Gordie Howe being prime example who stayed relevant for 5 decades.

sure some would but all of them?

not likely, we see how guys suddenly drop off or decline faster than expected then add in a 20-30 year gap and it's hard to say how elite the stars of the 70's and 80's would be today or vice versa.

Most of the "evidence" is the competition against peers in an ever expanding NHL with little or no influx of new talent, especially in the 70's.

No doubt some would be stars and even be elite but all of them?

Could go either way really.

Howe BTW is a poor example of your argument, the league expanded as he aged (of course he was in his late 30's and a physical freak) but his decline was evident before he retired then played in the WHA.

If he had done that from the mid 70's to early 2000's it would be another thing but it isn't

jkrx 07-14-2014 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 (Post 88029301)
sure some would but all of them?

not likely, we see how guys suddenly drop off or decline faster than expected then add in a 20-30 year gap and it's hard to say how elite the stars of the 70's and 80's would be today or vice versa.

Most of the "evidence" is the competition against peers in an ever expanding NHL with little or no influx of new talent, especially in the 70's.

No doubt some would be stars and even be elite but all of them?

Could go either way really.

Howe BTW is a poor example of your argument, the league expanded as he aged (of course he was in his late 30's and a physical freak) but his decline was evident before he retired then played in the WHA.

If he had done that from the mid 70's to early 2000's it would be another thing but it isn't

Mr. Hockey did play in the summit series in 74 was still a top player competing with the best soviets. He was still best RW in the world prior to that. Why would it matter if he played into the 2000s? Do you believe the 2000s is a magical era much different from the rest?

Hardyvan123 07-14-2014 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkrx (Post 88031785)
Mr. Hockey did play in the summit series in 74 was still a top player competing with the best soviets. He was still best RW in the world prior to that. Why would it matter if he played into the 2000s? Do you believe the 2000s is a magical era much different from the rest?

no the 200s isn't a magical era but the NHL expanded vastly towards the end of the 60's and early-mid 70's with no influx of new talent streams, quite different than the situation in the 2000's


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:24 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.