HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Chicago circa 1962 to 1974: What went wrong?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-17-2015, 01:45 AM
  #1
The Panther
Registered User
 
The Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 3,803
vCash: 500
Chicago circa 1962 to 1974: What went wrong?

With the Blackhawks being Stanley Cup champs again (3 times in 6 years), what about the missed opportunity Blackhawk teams of the past? I know little about them as they don't seem to inspire as much media/prose as other teams of the old days.

I'm thinking about the Blackhawks circa 1962 to 1974. In those 12 years, they had only 2 coaches (really 1, since Rudy Pilous was gone by '63), the main one being Billy Reay. They finished 1st or 2nd in the NHL/their division 9 times in 12 years, including five times in 1st place. They were frequently the highest-scoring team in the NHL ('65 to '67) or the 2nd-highest. Their offence was of course powered by Bobby Hull, probably the most dominant left-wing in hockey history, and the great Stan Mikita. Hull was a 1st-team All Star from '63 to '70 (and '72), Mikita from '62 to '68.

So, a stable organization with two of the greatest forwards of all time, several first place finishes (still a 6-team League to 1967), and to show for this -- zero Stanley Cups.

What went wrong with this team? Was the support cast not strong enough? Was the goaltending only average?

The Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 01:52 AM
  #2
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
I'll dig up some articles I've found before.

But basically, I've seen all the following explanations

-lacked depth, which not only had the direct effect you'd expect, but also tired out the stars during the regular season. This is probably the #1 reason.
-relatively weak coaching
-stars didn't necessarily buy into a team concept.
-weak (for the original 6 era) team defense. (Not built for the playoffs?)
-goaltending not always clutch (this one is based off the eye test of a couple of older posters here - no idea if it's true or it's just a case of blaming the losing goalie)

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 09:17 AM
  #3
Voight
GB 66-67-96-10-?
 
Voight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Croatia
Posts: 11,414
vCash: 423
Pilote only played a few more years after his Norris seasons and there was an overall lack of defence aside from him.

Somewhat unrelated, but Mikita was overall the better player than Hull IMO. Hull gets more noise because of the weak-ish LW crowd.

Voight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 09:25 AM
  #4
Martin Riggs
You wanna see crazy?
 
Martin Riggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: LAPD- Homicide
Country: United States
Posts: 795
vCash: 500
Well, much like how the Hawks of the 80s couldn't get past the Oilers & Flames, there was always a better team from '62 to '74 wasn't there.. You had the 60s Leafs and then the 70s Habs. '71 & '73 the Habs beat the Hawks in the finals. The Hawks were good. Just not championship good I guess. You'd think a core of Hull, Mikita and Tony-O (with a decent supporting cast of Dennis Hull, Pit Martin, and Bill White) would've gotten at least one Cup then. Just makes you think (yet again) what could've been if the Hawks weren't so stupid to trade Phil Esposito.

Martin Riggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 10:06 AM
  #5
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,967
vCash: 500
Perhaps Mikita and Hull weren't as good as they were cut out to be? "Stars not buying into the team concept and not committed to defense" to me is a part of their overall composite performance. I view Mikita as 60s Crosby. RS domination, but fizzling at crunch time.

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 10:30 AM
  #6
Voight
GB 66-67-96-10-?
 
Voight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Croatia
Posts: 11,414
vCash: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Riggs View Post
Well, much like how the Hawks of the 80s couldn't get past the Oilers & Flames, there was always a better team from '62 to '74 wasn't there.. You had the 60s Leafs and then the 70s Habs. '71 & '73 the Habs beat the Hawks in the finals. The Hawks were good. Just not championship good I guess. You'd think a core of Hull, Mikita and Tony-O (with a decent supporting cast of Dennis Hull, Pit Martin, and Bill White) would've gotten at least one Cup then. Just makes you think (yet again) what could've been if the Hawks weren't so stupid to trade Phil Esposito.
Unfortunately Tony O became a star towards the end of Hull's Chicago years and the end of Mikita's prime. But the Hawks were fortunate to go from HOF goalie to HOF goalie.

Voight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 10:38 AM
  #7
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawked View Post
Somewhat unrelated, but Mikita was overall the better player than Hull IMO. Hull gets more noise because of the weak-ish LW crowd.
Those who saw both extensively in their prime disagree:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
In 1970, the Associated Press "polled the nation's sportswriters and sportscasters" to name hockey's Player of the Decade for the 1960s.

These were the full results:

Bobby Hull: 436.5
Gordie Howe: 145.5
Bobby Orr: 19
Stan Mikita: 7
Jean Beliveau, Phil Esposito, Jacques Plante: 2
Gump Worsley, Bernie Geoffrion: 1
See source.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 10:46 AM
  #8
Killion
Registered User
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Village
Country: Wales
Posts: 29,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
... goaltending not always clutch (this one is based off the eye test of a couple of older posters here - no idea if it's true or it's just a case of blaming the losing goalie.
Well, you can count yours truly out of that category, "older posters blaming the goalie". As an old goalie myself take umbrage with anyone doing so in any situation with the exception of incidences where its warranted & the guy did indeed screw up. Whiffed on a long shot turning the tide in a game & series, erratic, unsteady, shaky or whatever. But sure, in the case of Chicago & Hall, theory goes that he'd been over-played through multiple Regular Seasons. His style, semi Butterfly extremely taxing, exhausting the body & ultimately the mind & spirit. Come Playoffs' tank emptying rather rapidly. The guy gave it his all & then some throughout the Regular Seasons, Eddie Litzenberger nicknaming him "Mr. Ghoulie" due to his ghostly pale complexion prior to each game. And of course we know all about the up-chucking, before a game, sometimes during a game stopping play while he headed to the dressing room to kiss the toilet bowl, in between periods. Nerves & the belief that playing on an empty stomach gave him the "edge" he needed. All combined, thats gunna take its toll.

Glenn Hall had been talking Retirement for at least 3 seasons prior to 67/68's Expansion but talked into coming back every fall. Whether or not he was serious about Retiring is debatable as he wasnt real keen on showing up for Training Camps as it was, having to face a Hell of a lot of rubber from the likes of Hull & Mikita when really nothing was on the line. So it couldve been merely a negotiating strategy to squeeze more money out of Chicago but I doubt it. With Expansion on the horizon, and Chicago well aware of the fact that they could only protect so many players, Hall a Marquee name, they made him an offer he couldnt refuse pretty much doubling his previous salary to come back for 66/67, then left him unprotected in the Expansion Draft that summer. In St.Louis playing fewer games come Playoff's despite the fact that the Blues stood less than zero chance in the Finals, Hall was absolutely outstanding, and by then in his late 30's. Won the Conn Smythe. The Goalie in the famous SC Winning Orr Goal, telling Bobby years after "I'd already showered & left the building by the time you hit the ice & landed" (sic; words to that affect).... Chicago meanwhile was running with Halls former Backup Denis Dejordy playing the majority of games with Dave Dryden & Jack Norris filling in, and it wasnt until Tony Esposito arrived that their Goaltending situation improved. Esposito of course a Hall protege', link in the thread of the development of the Butterfly. Chicago from 62-74 while always competitive did lack depth, Bench strength in terms of smarts, out-Coached, internally problems thanks to a parsimonious owner who cheaped out & pissed off their franchise player & the NHL's leading star of the era, Bobby Hull.

As for Glenn Hall, he had absolutely nothing but the uptmost praise for the Montreal Canadiens, entire team & management/coaching, and in particular for Jean Beliveau. Rated him as having the hardest Slapshot to handle, beyond crafty & smart in close with Wristers, Flick Shots, Backhanders & Dekes. He also of course faced the Habs late 50's Dynasty, and has talked of facing Maurice the Rocket Richard, who most of us never saw in full flight. Rather interestingly mentions that the vast majority of Richards shots were taken on the Backhand. Interesting as its very telling of Maurice Richard. Thats a super aggressive player going in that deep, not just at the Defencemen, the Goalie & the net, but right through them & it if necessary. Deadly Backhander to finish the job. The hardest shot for any goalie to stop as you have no idea what the flight path of the puck might be. Its in close, could go Top Shelf, Low, cant read the trajectory off the stick in that split second before release. As your backed into the net, only thing effective is the Butterfly, cover as much of the net as you can & pray it hits you or you do get lucky & see where its going. Make the "save" rather than the "block". But the Butterfly for Hall & many others was a "save selection", it wasnt a full-time "style" the way it is today though Hall used it a lot more than everyone else. Causes back problems, easily tear MCL's etc, and Hall, no different. Unnatural position for the body physiologically. He did suffer from back problems starting in 62 or so, couldnt play, ending a Starting streak that broke all records. So yes, combination of Hall being over-played in Chicago, but there was more to it than just that. Bower, Worsley & others played a lot of games, however Montreal & Toronto, better depth Defensively than Chicago. Wouldnt be pinning the blame exclusively on Glenn Hall for Chicago's Playoff shortcomings.


Last edited by Killion: 06-17-2015 at 10:59 AM.
Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 10:48 AM
  #9
tony d
Real Super Mario
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,470
vCash: 500
Yeah, I can see the similarities between this team and the Penguins team of current day. Any team with Hull and Mikita should have done more than just 1 Cup.

__________________
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 01:27 PM
  #10
double5son10
Registered User
 
double5son10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Denver
Country: United States
Posts: 683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'll dig up some articles I've found before.

But basically, I've seen all the following explanations

-lacked depth, which not only had the direct effect you'd expect, but also tired out the stars during the regular season. This is probably the #1 reason.
-relatively weak coaching
-stars didn't necessarily buy into a team concept.
-weak (for the original 6 era) team defense. (Not built for the playoffs?)
-goaltending not always clutch (this one is based off the eye test of a couple of older posters here - no idea if it's true or it's just a case of blaming the losing goalie)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Well, you can count yours truly out of that category, "older posters blaming the goalie". As an old goalie myself take umbrage with anyone doing so in any situation with the exception of incidences where its warranted & the guy did indeed screw up. Whiffed on a long shot turning the tide in a game & series, erratic, unsteady, shaky or whatever. But sure, in the case of Chicago & Hall, theory goes that he'd been over-played through multiple Regular Seasons. His style, semi Butterfly extremely taxing, exhausting the body & ultimately the mind & spirit. Come Playoffs' tank emptying rather rapidly. The guy gave it his all & then some throughout the Regular Seasons, Eddie Litzenberger nicknaming him "Mr. Ghoulie" due to his ghostly pale complexion prior to each game. And of course we know all about the up-chucking, before a game, sometimes during a game stopping play while he headed to the dressing room to kiss the toilet bowl, in between periods. Nerves & the belief that playing on an empty stomach gave him the "edge" he needed. All combined, thats gunna take its toll.

Glenn Hall had been talking Retirement for at least 3 seasons prior to 67/68's Expansion but talked into coming back every fall. Whether or not he was serious about Retiring is debatable as he wasnt real keen on showing up for Training Camps as it was, having to face a Hell of a lot of rubber from the likes of Hull & Mikita when really nothing was on the line. So it couldve been merely a negotiating strategy to squeeze more money out of Chicago but I doubt it. With Expansion on the horizon, and Chicago well aware of the fact that they could only protect so many players, Hall a Marquee name, they made him an offer he couldnt refuse pretty much doubling his previous salary to come back for 66/67, then left him unprotected in the Expansion Draft that summer. In St.Louis playing fewer games come Playoff's despite the fact that the Blues stood less than zero chance in the Finals, Hall was absolutely outstanding, and by then in his late 30's. Won the Conn Smythe. The Goalie in the famous SC Winning Orr Goal, telling Bobby years after "I'd already showered & left the building by the time you hit the ice & landed" (sic; words to that affect).... Chicago meanwhile was running with Halls former Backup Denis Dejordy playing the majority of games with Dave Dryden & Jack Norris filling in, and it wasnt until Tony Esposito arrived that their Goaltending situation improved. Esposito of course a Hall protege', link in the thread of the development of the Butterfly. Chicago from 62-74 while always competitive did lack depth, Bench strength in terms of smarts, out-Coached, internally problems thanks to a parsimonious owner who cheaped out & pissed off their franchise player & the NHL's leading star of the era, Bobby Hull.

As for Glenn Hall, he had absolutely nothing but the uptmost praise for the Montreal Canadiens, entire team & management/coaching, and in particular for Jean Beliveau. Rated him as having the hardest Slapshot to handle, beyond crafty & smart in close with Wristers, Flick Shots, Backhanders & Dekes. He also of course faced the Habs late 50's Dynasty, and has talked of facing Maurice the Rocket Richard, who most of us never saw in full flight. Rather interestingly mentions that the vast majority of Richards shots were taken on the Backhand. Interesting as its very telling of Maurice Richard. Thats a super aggressive player going in that deep, not just at the Defencemen, the Goalie & the net, but right through them & it if necessary. Deadly Backhander to finish the job. The hardest shot for any goalie to stop as you have no idea what the flight path of the puck might be. Its in close, could go Top Shelf, Low, cant read the trajectory off the stick in that split second before release. As your backed into the net, only thing effective is the Butterfly, cover as much of the net as you can & pray it hits you or you do get lucky & see where its going. Make the "save" rather than the "block". But the Butterfly for Hall & many others was a "save selection", it wasnt a full-time "style" the way it is today though Hall used it a lot more than everyone else. Causes back problems, easily tear MCL's etc, and Hall, no different. Unnatural position for the body physiologically. He did suffer from back problems starting in 62 or so, couldnt play, ending a Starting streak that broke all records. So yes, combination of Hall being over-played in Chicago, but there was more to it than just that. Bower, Worsley & others played a lot of games, however Montreal & Toronto, better depth Defensively than Chicago. Wouldnt be pinning the blame exclusively on Glenn Hall for Chicago's Playoff shortcomings.
I've seen Reay's coaching as a particular criticism. He seems to have favored his stars, Hull & Mikita, a lot. I've read that Pit Martin, when he came over from Boston in the disastrous Esposito trade, was openly critical of how there was one set of rules for Hull & Mikita, another for the rest of the team. Is the coddling of the stars on Reay, or on Tommy Ivan? Probably both, but I always believe team culture starts w/ ownership and Wirtz is fairly infamous. The Norris' too.
As for the coaching from the bench, what was Reay's great weakness? Again, he clearly leaned on his stars, and they wore thin come playoff time. But is that on Reay, or management for not building organizational depth? Reay's regular season win % (.589 w/ the 'Hawks) is more than respectable and three Finals appearances (including one w/out Hull) would certainly suggest he wasn't a complete incompetent. He and Ivan got fired after the team got old and declined. Poor drafting post-expansion is a clear culprit, but that's surely more on Ivan and Dollar Bill than on Reay. Why, as a bench boss, is Reay looked upon so negatively?


Last edited by double5son10: 06-17-2015 at 01:42 PM.
double5son10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 06:20 PM
  #11
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,873
vCash: 500
I know people might disagree, but some of the blame does have to go on the goalies. Hall and then later Esposito. Look, Hall was a great goalie, one of the best ever. People would kill to have even Hall's playoff resume (one Cup win, another Conn Smythe in a losing cause). But there was the case of him having some bad games at clutch moments at times. Look in the 1960s and you'll see some shady games from him at Game 6 or 7 moments. Not outplaying the other goalie, whether it was Sawchuk, Bower, Worsley, etc. So there's that. However, in defense of Hall..............

...........the depth players didn't step up. Look at the numbers for Hull, Mikita and Pilote. They are all great and consistent with what you would expect from their regular seasons. Heck, Mikita had 21 points in 1962, which stood until Esposito broke it in 1970. Mikita did this with two rounds. Everyone after with at least three. Is there a time when the stars could have scored just ONE more goal somewhere or a time when a critical save by Mr. Hall could have changed things? Yes, there is. But more of the blame I think goes to guys like Kenny Wharram. Some fine regular seasons, but don't even look up his playoff stats. The secondary scoring was minimal.

Lastly, I wouldn't have called 1973 a very memorable postseason for Tony Esposito either. 1971 was a bit better until the collapse in Game 7 of the final. What could have been if not for that long shot from center ice from Lemaire? So you have to lay some blame there too. It is deserved.

Hall and Tony O deserve some blame for sure, Hull, Mikita and Pilote did what you thought they would and I would consider them great playoff guys, but I guess you can't give them extra credit for not winning more than one Cup either. But the lion's share of the blame is on guys like Wharram, McDonald, Martin, even Dennis Hull at times.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 06:31 PM
  #12
Killion
Registered User
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Village
Country: Wales
Posts: 29,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I know people might disagree, but some of the blame does have to go on the goalies... Look, Hall was a great goalie, one of the best ever. People would kill to have even Hall's playoff resume (one Cup win, another Conn Smythe in a losing cause). But there was the case of him having some bad games at clutch moments at times. Look in the 1960s and you'll see some shady games from him at Game 6 or 7 moments. Not outplaying the other goalie, whether it was Sawchuk, Bower, Worsley, etc. So there's that. However, in defense of Hall..............

...........the depth players didn't step up....
Yes, I think that fair and you qualified it with "the depth players didnt step up"...... Fact is, Chicago didnt have a whole lot of depth, played a much more wide open & riskier game than did Montreal let alone Toronto. Old saying all 6 players on the ice make a series of mistakes and the pucks in the net. Now, imagine switching Bower with Hall. Trade Johnny to Chicago, Hall in Toronto. A team that didnt make the kinds of defensive mistakes Chicago's blue liners & forwards often made. Ha?.... Kinda puts a whole new spin on things eh?

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 09:14 PM
  #13
The Panther
Registered User
 
The Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 3,803
vCash: 500
Thanks for the comments. Very interesting...

The Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 10:03 PM
  #14
Voight
GB 66-67-96-10-?
 
Voight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Croatia
Posts: 11,414
vCash: 423
What's sad is between 64-68 the players collectively had 3 Norris', 5 Art Ross, 4 Lady Byngs, 1 Vezina and 4 Harts. In 64, 66 and 67 they had 3/5 members of the First-All Star team (Hall on the second team in 67), 65 had Pilote/Hull on the first team, Mikita on the second and 68 had Mikita/Hull on the first team. 64 and 66 they had 4/6 members.


Last edited by Voight: 06-17-2015 at 11:00 PM.
Voight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 10:17 PM
  #15
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by double5son10 View Post
I've seen Reay's coaching as a particular criticism. He seems to have favored his stars, Hull & Mikita, a lot. I've read that Pit Martin, when he came over from Boston in the disastrous Esposito trade, was openly critical of how there was one set of rules for Hull & Mikita, another for the rest of the team. Is the coddling of the stars on Reay, or on Tommy Ivan? Probably both, but I always believe team culture starts w/ ownership and Wirtz is fairly infamous. The Norris' too.
Here's an SI article from 1963 about a player mutiny against coach Rudy Pilous, and Billy Reay coming in. It starts by talking about how his players hated him (for being too hard on them) and Eric Nesterenko said he "couldn't coach himself out of a paper bag." Looks weird in retrospect, as Pilous was just a year removed from coaching them to their only Cup win in forever. Here's more:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rich Bounty of Mutiny, SI, 1963
No team in the NHL has more individual stars or more temperamental individualists than Chicago. Bobby Hull, year by year, is skating his way into history as one of the game's alltime superstars. Outspoken Stan Mikita, who likes to describe himself as a dirty player, is one of the game's top hustlers. Glenn Hall won the Vezina Trophy as the league's best goalie last year, and Captain Pierre Pilote won a similar award as the top defenseman. Five of the stars chosen by a panel of hockey writers and sportscasters to play in the season-opening all-star game were Black Hawks.

Molding that kind of talent and temperament into a smoothly working unit is not easy, but Reay does it with an easy touch. "He treats us," says Mikita, "like men."

One of the complaints that both Hull and Mikita had last year was that Pilous did not give them enough ice time, a deprivation that cut down their opportunity to score. One of Reay's first changes was to put these high shooters on a schedule that has them skating for 40 minutes of every game. Both of them are now serving not only in their regular lines but as penalty killers and key men. Chicago's players are known for being among the roughest and toughest in the league, but under Reay they seem suddenly to have become also the happiest. Besides Reay, the most notable newcomer to the Black Hawks this season is Howie Young, the onetime Bad Boy of Detroit. Howie last year had the credentials—the biggest penalty record ever—to prove he was rough and tough, and there is scarcely a Black Hawk who doesn't bear scars attesting his ferocity. But the Hawks have welcomed Howie to their midst, and if Howie has not precisely undergone a reformation, he is at least conscious of being in sympathetic company. A few weeks ago he collaborated with Stan Mikita on one of Chicago's most memorable goals to date. The puck came off Howie's stick like a projectile, hit Stan in the neck and caromed past the Toronto goalie. Stan, flinging an arm about Howie's neck, was more than happy to take official credit for the goal.
http://www.si.com/vault/1963/12/02/5...unty-of-mutiny

So yes, it seems like Reay was hired, in part, to give lots of ice time to his stars.


Quote:
Originally Posted by double5son10
As for the coaching from the bench, what was Reay's great weakness? Again, he clearly leaned on his stars, and they wore thin come playoff time. But is that on Reay, or management for not building organizational depth? Reay's regular season win % (.589 w/ the 'Hawks) is more than respectable and three Finals appearances (including one w/out Hull) would certainly suggest he wasn't a complete incompetent. He and Ivan got fired after the team got old and declined. Poor drafting post-expansion is a clear culprit, but that's surely more on Ivan and Dollar Bill than on Reay. Why, as a bench boss, is Reay looked upon so negatively?
It's second hand hearsay, but

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
According to Bobby Hull for one.

I've actually been lucky enough to talk to Bobby Hull a few times. Last time I talked to him, I owned Glenn Hall (TDMM edit - he means in the All Time Draft), so I was looking for some insight into their play-off issued. I asked him why he thought the Blackhawks only won one Cup. His response was pretty clear - Billy Reay was a moron. He gave a few examples of why, but one applies here. He said that Mikita was almost always used to match up against top lines, which was fine against everyone except Montreal. Mikita couldn't handle Beliveau's size, and Reay never changed his plan. He just went back to that match-up over and over, and it always bit Chicago in the ass.
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...7&postcount=30

Black Hawks stars blaming everyone else for the teams failures seems to be a thing, something I really don't think I've seen before.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 10:26 PM
  #16
DJ Man
Registered User
 
DJ Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: East Central Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawked View Post
What's sad is between 64-68 the players collectively had 3 Norris', 5 Art Ross, 4 Lady Byngs, 1 Vezina and 4 Harts. In 64, 66 and 67 they had 3/5 members of the First-All Star team, 65 had Pilote/Hull on the first team, Mikita on the second and 68 had Mikita/Hull on the first team.
Hall won the Vezina in '62-63, missed by +2 goals in '63-64 and by +3 in '64-65, then won it (with DeJordy) by -18 in '65-66. So, that number could have easily been 4.

DJ Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 10:28 PM
  #17
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Here's an article from 1967 about the Hawks not having as much success as people thought they perhaps should.

It's called "No Foldo In Chicago - Renouncing their traditional March tailspin, Bobby Hull and the rest of the boisterous Black Hawks skate to the first championship in the club's history"

It talks about the Hawks lack of depth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SI, 1967
To many observers, of course, the Hawks have had the best team in the NHL for the last five years. After all, they had the top goal-scorer in Hull, the top defenseman in Pierre Pilote, the all-star goalie in Glenn Hall and the best forward line in the Scooters (see cover), a line consisting of Mikita, Kenny Wharram and, during the last three years, Doug Mohns. Yet every March, with the long-awaited championship in sight, the Hawks would collapse. Explanations for this phenomenon have ranged from the mythical Muldoon Jinx—a curse allegedly pronounced by the team's first coach, Pete Muldoon, when he was fired in 1927—to accusations of "choking," but the Hawks tend to explain their past failures in more basic, physical terms.

"There was a simple reason for those late slumps," says Pilote, the 35-year-old team captain. "We always depended too much on a few stars. We had to use them a lot and they got worn out. And when the stars got tired the team faded. This season the load is more evenly distributed, so the stars have stayed strong all year long."


Last year the focus on stars was sharpest as Bobby Hull sought his record-breaking 51st goal. "I don't think we concentrated on passing the puck to Bobby as much as some people said we did," says Mikita. "But I guess his try for the record did have some effect, subconsciously at least." Chicago suffered three straight shutouts before Bobby finally got No. 51. "It was exciting," recalls Pilote. "We all wanted to see Bobby make it. But maybe it did keep us from pulling together to win games."

"You should really have only one purpose in mind at a time," adds Mohns. "Last year we were thinking about Bobby as well as winning. This year we have only one thing to worry about—first place. We'll get that, and the records will come by themselves."
So two possible culprits here. Pilote publicly blames lack of depth (I'm sure the depth players on the Black Hawks loved hearing their captain say that), and it seems there was some talk about the Black Hawks putting individual records ahead of winning hockey games - in the regular season at least.

The rest of the article goes on to talk about the success the Black Hawks were having that season, in particular the Scooter Line (Mohns - Mikita- Wharram).

http://www.si.com/vault/1967/03/20/5...ldo-in-chicago

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 10:39 PM
  #18
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Here's a puff piece on Glenn Hall from 1992. Again, it's a puff piece, so it's natural to try to make it look like Hall was more on his own than he actually was. Anyway:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Man of the Ice Glenn Hall played 502 consecutive games in goal -- perhaps the safest record in all of sports, SI, 1992
What particularly distinguishes Hall's iron-man mark was the quality of his play throughout it. In '55-56 he was NHL rookie of the year. In '60-61 he led the Hawks to an unexpected Stanley Cup championship. During those seven seasons Hall was named to the first or second All-Star team six times—a feat made more amazing by the competition. This was the golden era of the goalie (or the "goolie," as Hall was nicknamed). Five future Hall of Famers were manning the nets in the six-team NHL then: Terry Sawchuk, Johnny Bower, Jacques Plante, Gump Worsley and Hall. "You pretty much saw good goaltending every night," Hall says. "That was one of the great things about the old six-team league. You always wanted to force the guy in the other net to play well."
Quote:
Hall was known as a reflex goalie, one who relied more on quickness of hand and foot than on angles and positioning. Playing most of his career for the run-and-gun Hawks of the Bobby Hull era, he was often left to fend spectacularly for himself. Opponents had no reliable book on how to beat him, except to keep gunning.
Glenn Hall basically called Bobby Hull a puck hog:

Quote:
Those Hull-Mikita-Hall-led Hawks were a thrilling team to watch, but despite their great talent, they only won the one Stanley Cup, in 1961. Hall believes that the Black Hawks' penchant for the offensive game—and a lust for goal scoring—may have been a factor. "They sacrificed passing the puck for the shot," he says. "Bobby just loved to shoot the puck more than anything."
Scotty Bowman is pretty clear about what he thought about the Hawks' style:

Quote:
"Those Hawk teams never paid much attention to defense," says Scotty Bowman, who coached Hall for four seasons with the St. Louis Blues. "One year Glenn was leading the race for the Vezina Trophy [which in those years went to the goalie who allowed the fewest goals against] by six goals with two games left in the season, and on the plane trip to Toronto all the Black Hawks were talking about was how many goals they needed to make their bonuses. Glenn never said a thing, which he wouldn't, knowing him. So Chicago ends up getting in a couple of shoot-outs, and Glenn lost the Vezina on the last day of the season. It tells you how well Glenn had to have played all season to even have been close."
To be fair, Bowman was not a fan of offensive hockey and he did coach Hall in St. Louis, so maybe he had motivation to pump the tires of his ex-player.

http://www.si.com/vault/1992/10/27/1...-all-of-sports

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 10:54 PM
  #19
Sprague Cleghorn
User Registered
 
Sprague Cleghorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Edmonton, KY
Country: Ras al-Khaimah
Posts: 2,372
vCash: 350
It's because the Hawks were paying back the hockey gods for letting them win Cups when they sucked in the RS in the 30s. A deal with the devil.

Sprague Cleghorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 10:59 PM
  #20
Voight
GB 66-67-96-10-?
 
Voight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Croatia
Posts: 11,414
vCash: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ Man View Post
Hall won the Vezina in '62-63, missed by +2 goals in '63-64 and by +3 in '64-65, then won it (with DeJordy) by -18 in '65-66. So, that number could have easily been 4.
Many people substitute it in the pre-jennings era for the First All-Sttar team , leaving Hall with 63, 64 and 66. So Two Vzinas in my time frame and I need to add him to the totals from before.

Voight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2015, 11:03 PM
  #21
Voight
GB 66-67-96-10-?
 
Voight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Croatia
Posts: 11,414
vCash: 423
Kinda scary how the 60s core was a top centre, winger and D....... Just like now

Voight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2015, 09:50 AM
  #22
Ralph Spoilsport
Rookie Mistake
 
Ralph Spoilsport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 270
vCash: 500
I wonder if Mikita going full Gandhi had anything to do with it. Hard to imagine but he did win his only Cup when he played a scrappy game. Maybe he could have been more effective if he continued to play that way? Just a thought.

Ralph Spoilsport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2015, 10:46 AM
  #23
vadim sharifijanov
TRUMP-BENNING 2016
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Quote:
"There was a simple reason for those late slumps," says Pilote, the 35-year-old team captain. "We always depended too much on a few stars. We had to use them a lot and they got worn out. And when the stars got tired the team faded. This season the load is more evenly distributed, so the stars have stayed strong all year long."
...

Pilote publicly blames lack of depth (I'm sure the depth players on the Black Hawks loved hearing their captain say that), ...

http://www.si.com/vault/1967/03/20/5...ldo-in-chicago
i don't think pilote is really blaming the depth guys on his team here. i mean, he's also saying they need more icetime sometimes. seems like if i'm joe third line, i take it as pilote saying the team can't win when himself, hull, and stosh have nothing left in the tank. which anybody would agree with.

comparisons: the late '60s wilt 76ers and the recent lebron heat? i mean, someday some kid is going to look back on lebron's career and ask how a guy who was supposed to be the far and away best player of his generation and who played with two superstars could make five straight finals and only come away with two titles.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2015, 11:35 AM
  #24
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,774
vCash: 500
Future

Overlooked is that the Hawks were the last O6 team to develop a junior developmental and minor league farm system. Remember the other NHL teams, mainly Montréal, Toronto, selling their unwanted depth players to the Hawks in the 1953-58 era and beyond until 1961. Ab McDonald, Dollard St. Laurent, Bob Turner to name a few.

Also the Red Wings using the Hawks as a farm system, post WWII. - Norris/Wirtz era.

When the NHL Entry draft, followed by the 1967 expansion draft followed, the Hawks were impacted more by their losses than the other O6 teams. Montréal lost the likes of a Gilbert Perreault and did not miss a step since they had the depth to manipulate the Entry Draft and get a Guy Lafleur one year later upon the retirement of Jean Beliveau. Hawks lost Marcel Dionne who had developed in St Catharines, followed by the departure of Bobby Hull to the WHA. Neither was replaced.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2015, 12:22 PM
  #25
Voight
GB 66-67-96-10-?
 
Voight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Croatia
Posts: 11,414
vCash: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Overlooked is that the Hawks were the last O6 team to develop a junior developmental and minor league farm system. Remember the other NHL teams, mainly Montréal, Toronto, selling their unwanted depth players to the Hawks in the 1953-58 era and beyond until 1961. Ab McDonald, Dollard St. Laurent, Bob Turner to name a few.

Also the Red Wings using the Hawks as a farm system, post WWII. - Norris/Wirtz era.

When the NHL Entry draft, followed by the 1967 expansion draft followed, the Hawks were impacted more by their losses than the other O6 teams. Montréal lost the likes of a Gilbert Perreault and did not miss a step since they had the depth to manipulate the Entry Draft and get a Guy Lafleur one year later upon the retirement of Jean Beliveau. Hawks lost Marcel Dionne who had developed in St Catharines, followed by the departure of Bobby Hull to the WHA. Neither was replaced.
Great insight.

Voight 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 09:56 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.