View Single Post
01-16-2013, 11:10 AM
Global Moderator
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,192
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post

- Worsley, Lumley and Rollins were the middle tier. Worsley was more of a contemporary of the "big 3" but was simply a lesser talent. Lumley and Rollins were the same age, slightly older, and were both more or less set in their development by the time the decade began. Frankly I don't think a whole lot separates them other than circumstance. Both had brief peaks of all-time value, neither managed to sustain it and both faded from view after age 30. The biggest difference I can see is that Lumley got the hell out of Chicago as fast as he could, while Rollins stuck around and suffered the consequences.
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
I mean, maybe I'm forgetting something, but is Lumley not separated from Rollins primarily by derivatives of the fact that he played on better teams?
Well it took Rollins, plus Gus Mortson (a recent All Star) plus Cal Gardner (a solid depth player) plus Ray Hannigan (career AHLer) for Chicago to acquire Lumley, for what that's worth. Obviously Lumley was more proven by that point though.

Also, even if Rollins was close to Lumley when both were in their primes (which is probably a reasonable assumption), Rollins' career was much shorter.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote