HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Allan Stanley VS Tom Johnson VS Kenny Reardon

View Poll Results: Allan Stanley VS Kenny Reardon VS Tom Johnson
Allan Stanley 4 40.00%
Kenny Reardon 4 40.00%
Tom Johnson 2 20.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-05-2010, 06:52 PM
  #1
JFA87-66-99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,312
vCash: 500
Allan Stanley VS Tom Johnson VS Kenny Reardon

If you had to pick between these 3 defensemen, who do you take. I know Tom Johnson was the 1959 norris trophy winner and the book "ultimate hockey" has Kenny Reardon winning two retro Norris trophies. I know Allan Stanley was a great stay at home defensemen. Let me know what you guys think. Thanks


Last edited by JFA87-66-99: 05-05-2010 at 06:59 PM.
JFA87-66-99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2010, 06:59 PM
  #2
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,163
vCash: 500
Tom Johnson. He won a Norris even though Harvey did miss a lot of time that year and would have been a lock (again) to capture it. Nothing bad you can say about either one of them though. Stanley was always solid and I guess if you had a knock on him it would be that he didn't win a Cup or was an all-star until he was in his 30s and even then it was only three 2nd team all-stars. Reardon had the shortest career of the three and that has to go against him. Maybe with a full career he's #1 on this list but he didn't so.........

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2010, 07:10 PM
  #3
JFA87-66-99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,312
vCash: 500
I know Tom Johnson was a very underrated player who was a huge contributer to those 1950's Canadiens squads. He was a solid d-men all over the ice with decent skills and was a hard hitter. The "Ultimate hockey book compares him to Adam Foote. He played 18 seasons with 1 Norris trophy and 2 all-star team selections I think. I know Kenny Reardon
only played 9-10 seasons but had 5 all-star team selections, and "ultimate hockey" credits him with 2 retro Norris trophies. So who was more dominating out of the 2 players.
Reardon's peak VS Johnson's peak???

JFA87-66-99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2010, 07:59 PM
  #4
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Tom Johnson. He won a Norris even though Harvey did miss a lot of time that year and would have been a lock (again) to capture it. Nothing bad you can say about either one of them though. Stanley was always solid and I guess if you had a knock on him it would be that he didn't win a Cup or was an all-star until he was in his 30s and even then it was only three 2nd team all-stars. Reardon had the shortest career of the three and that has to go against him. Maybe with a full career he's #1 on this list but he didn't so.........
But also, he has as many all-star teams as Stanley and Johnson do combined.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2010, 08:08 PM
  #5
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,755
vCash: 500
Allan Stanley and the Stanley Cup

Allan Stanley and it should not be close.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/NYR/1950.html

Started with the New York Rangers and in 1950 his second season was the lead defenseman(defensively and offensively) in the Rangers surprise run thru the Stanley Cup finals - losing to the Red Wings in the 7th game in OT. His 12 game offensive contribution matched Ken Reardon's 31 career playoff totals.

As the Rangers drifted in the early 1950's due to poor management, Allan Stanley was an unappreciated steady force. Traded to Chicago for Bill Gadsby then quickly moved to Boston, he solidified the Boston defense with Fern Flaman and Leo Boivin, producing a major upset of the Red Wings in 1957 plus the Rangers in 1958 and two more trips to the Stanley Cup finals, losing to the dynasty Canadiens.

Traded to Toronto in 1958 he found the perfect defensive partner in Tim Horton. Each complimented the others style and Tim Horton was able to blossom into the Leafs defensive leader. A surprising late season surge put the Leafs into the finals where they upset Stanley's former team the Bruins starting an incredible Leaf run of five Stanley Cup Final appearances in six seasons resulting in three SC wins and a last hurrah Cup in 1967.

As a defensive duo Allan Stanley and Tim Horton were especially effective against the big forwards, regularly reducing the effectiveness of the like of Gordie Howe, Bobby Hull and Jean Beliveau.

Tom Johnson had an interesting and productive career. One Norris Trophy as a standin for an oft injured Doug Harvey during the 1958-59 season but for the most part of his career he was the 3rd d-man behind Harvey and Bouchard. After his Norris season his play declined and the season after Harvey left, 1961-62 John son would have been fourth on the depth chart behind Talbot, Tremblay and Fontinato. During the 1962-63 season he suffered an eye injury and wound up in Boston.

Ken Reardon - interesting short career. Prone to violence on the ice.Butch Bouchard until injured during the 1948-49 season was considered his superior.

Overall Allan Stanley by far.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2010, 09:52 PM
  #6
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,163
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
But also, he has as many all-star teams as Stanley and Johnson do combined.
I just wish he was around longer than 7 seasons. Kind of reminds me of Bill Durnan in a way in that they both were flooded with all-star selections over a short period of time yet most people would take the career of Turk Broda over Durnan partly because he was around at a high level longer.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 04:43 PM
  #7
Peter9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 363
vCash: 500
That Butch Bouchard may have been considered Reardon's superior before Bouchard's injury in 1947-48 is entirely irrelevant to the question at issue here since Butch Bouchard was eminently superior before his injury in 1947-48 to both Johnson and Stanley. Sleight of hand gets no credit here.

Little things like World War II, in which he served, and a career-ending injury made Reardon's career short. He began brightly as a 20-year-old in 1940-41 and played solidly in his rookie and sophomore seasons. Then came three prime years, when he was 22, 23 and 24, in which he was at war in Europe. On his return, he played five more seasons. In each of those seasons he was selected to the first or second all-star teams. He retired at age 29 because he often played through injury and the cumulation of injuries just made it too painful to continue. In his last season, he was named to the first all-star team; he had lost none of his skills when he retired. He simply had to leave the game. He was known throughout his career as a rugged, courageous and yet very skilful defenseman, among the very best ever.

Reardon nips Johnson by virtue of his peak. Stanley cannot compare to either one. I saw both Johnson and Stanley play many times. Reardon was too early for me; I was still in England, born there in the middle of the war in which Reardon courageously served.

Peter9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 07:22 PM
  #8
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,755
vCash: 500
Excellent Point

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter9 View Post
That Butch Bouchard may have been considered Reardon's superior before Bouchard's injury in 1947-48 is entirely irrelevant to the question at issue here since Butch Bouchard was eminently superior before his injury in 1947-48 to both Johnson and Stanley. Sleight of hand gets no credit here.

Little things like World War II, in which he served, and a career-ending injury made Reardon's career short. He began brightly as a 20-year-old in 1940-41 and played solidly in his rookie and sophomore seasons. Then came three prime years, when he was 22, 23 and 24, in which he was at war in Europe. On his return, he played five more seasons. In each of those seasons he was selected to the first or second all-star teams. He retired at age 29 because he often played through injury and the cumulation of injuries just made it too painful to continue. In his last season, he was named to the first all-star team; he had lost none of his skills when he retired. He simply had to leave the game. He was known throughout his career as a rugged, courageous and yet very skilful defenseman, among the very best ever.

Reardon nips Johnson by virtue of his peak. Stanley cannot compare to either one. I saw both Johnson and Stanley play many times. Reardon was too early for me; I was still in England, born there in the middle of the war in which Reardon courageously served.
Excellent point about the war years. Players did have their careers interrupted or delayed. Prime example being Doug Harvey who served and whose entry into the NHL was delayed. Harvey carried the emotional baggage of war time service for the rest of his life.

The HHOF has recognized certain players whose NHL career was reduced by the circumstances of WWII shortening careers. Ken Reardon being one, Edgar Laprade being another amongst a longer list.

Changing direction. The Johnson vs Stanley segment of the discussion. Johnson was a bit of a polarizing player in Montreal, like Terry Harper was, except Johnson was more talented than Harper. Stanley also tended towards polarizing his team's followers until he reached Toronto. The common ground being that fans and to a degree coaches always expected more.

My recollections are that Allan Stanley matured much better and for a longer stretch than Tom Johnson, balanced against the fact that the eye injury that Tom Johnson suffered towards the end of his Canadiens stay contributed to shortening his career.

How would this balance against your perceptions? Especially interested if you had a chance to view Johnson play as a member of the Bruins against teams other than the Canadiens, during your stay in Boston.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 07:46 AM
  #9
tony d
Thanks for memories
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,266
vCash: 500
I voted for Allan Stanley.

tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:11 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.