View Single Post
02-21-2013, 07:51 AM
Registered User
EagleBelfour's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,416
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Drillon's case is different from Apps and Schmidt. They both played in the NHL after the war with success. Drillon did not and it's not clear that he could have been effective. At the least he would have had to change his style of play. The post-war NHL was a faster game than the pre-war NHL as the introduction of the red line changed the game.
I think it's pretty clear that Drillon would of been a productive if he had play after the 1942-43 season. As I said before: last season in the NHL, 5th in goalscoring, 8th in overall scoring at the age of 29. Better question is: how long would he still have been productive? That is up for debate.

Speed his actually an attribute of Drillon, so I don't see why a faster NHL would affect him. Now, if you wanna knock Drillon down because he never played after the introduction of the red line, you'll have to knock down every players who played in the first 65 years of hockey.

Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Also for all his playoff scoring his team never won the Cup until he was benched. And both Toronto and Montreal were much better both offensively and defensively after he left. Nothing conclusive but several question marks.
A lot of players never won the Stanley Cup while being great playoff performer. Drillon is a one-way player: his job is to put puck in the net and rack up points. He was tremendous at his job and great in the playoffs at doing so. I think it's trivial to say that both Toronto and Montreal were better team when he left. Gordie Drillon was a very top goalscorer when he was playing the game. Losing a player like that hurt his team. If you are implying that a team without Drillon is better than a team with him in the lineup, I found it ludicrous.

Last edited by EagleBelfour: 02-21-2013 at 07:58 AM.
EagleBelfour is offline