How many Bruin players ended up in the HOF (starting career in Boston) during the Orr years?
All I hear are crickets….
I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
And does this imply that Phil Esposito does not count? Nor John Bucyk? The Phil Esposito who was the best forward in the NHL from 1968 to 1974 and could be accused of developing the "net front guy" on the powerplay when he finally got first unit minutes in Boston? And the John Bucyk who began compiling HOF worthy credentials after the age of 30 when paired with Phil Esposito?
The Bruins were a good team. They got prime years out of Hodge, Sanderson, MacKenzie, Cashman, Stanfield, Marcotte, Awry, Smith, etc. Some of them all-star worthy seasons.
How many Bruin players ended up in the HOF (starting career in Boston) during the Orr years?
All I hear are crickets….
I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
And does this imply that Phil Esposito does not count? Nor John Bucyk? The Phil Esposito who was the best forward in the NHL from 1968 to 1974 and could be accused of developing the "net front guy" on the powerplay when he finally got first unit minutes in Boston? And the John Bucyk who began compiling HOF worthy credentials after the age of 30 when paired with Phil Esposito?
The Bruins were a good team. They got prime years out of Hodge, Sanderson, MacKenzie, Cashman, Stanfield, Marcotte, Awry, Smith, etc. Some of them all-star worthy seasons.
All you have to do is check to see that in 1965 and earlier the Bruins were pathetic. Their records speak for themselves.
Look at Esposito’s NHL stats without Orr to see just how “good “ he was.
He has admitted that he was never in good shape and he and Sanderson led the vodka parties quite often.
Without Orr the Bruins and Espo were absolutely nothing. Him having one good tournament without Orr means nothing.
He gets 80 points a season without Orr in his prime.
How many Bruin players ended up in the HOF (starting career in Boston) during the Orr years?
All I hear are crickets….
I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
And does this imply that Phil Esposito does not count? Nor John Bucyk? The Phil Esposito who was the best forward in the NHL from 1968 to 1974 and could be accused of developing the "net front guy" on the powerplay when he finally got first unit minutes in Boston? And the John Bucyk who began compiling HOF worthy credentials after the age of 30 when paired with Phil Esposito?
The Bruins were a good team. They got prime years out of Hodge, Sanderson, MacKenzie, Cashman, Stanfield, Marcotte, Awry, Smith, etc. Some of them all-star worthy seasons.
All you have to do is check to see that in 1965 and earlier the Bruins were pathetic. Their records speak for themselves.
Look at Esposito’s NHL stats without Orr to see just how “good “ he was.
He has admitted that he was never in good shape and he and Sanderson led the vodka parties quite often.
Without Orr the Bruins and Espo were absolutely nothing. Him having one good tournament without Orr means nothing.
He gets 80 points a season without Orr in his prime.
In 66-67 with Chicago, Esposito had 60 points in 69 games, with 8 of those points coming on the powerplay. His PPG was 0.88. Orr's PPG was 0.67.
The next season in Boston, his powerplay points went up by 19 to 27. He played 74 games and scored 84 points for 1.14 PPG. Orr's PPG was 0.67.
Esposito's major jump in PPG happened prior to Orr's. To claim a 100% causal relationship in Esposito’s production being solely due to Orr is specious. Symbiotic, yes. Bucyk's production only increased after Esposito’s arrival.
Additionally, Esposito led Team Canada in the Summit Series with 13 points in 8 games, without Orr.
I am unclear why that means nothing. Orr never had a tournament without Esposito for comparison.
He averaged 80 points per season when aged 34-37 without Orr on the Rangers.
To say " He gets 80 points a season without Orr in his prime." Is nonsensical.
Again, I have not said anything negative regarding Orr, yet you trash Esposito.
I don't get it. Unless, you're presenting Randy "Macho Man" Savage rather than Randy Poffo.
@Goldenage said:
Without Bobby Orr in 1975 Phil had 80 something points and was a horrific minus thirty eight.
1966 Bruins 46 points.
Orr +1
Age 18
1975 Rangers 67 points
Esposito. -38
Age 30
What are you talking about?
In 75-76, at age 33, Esposito had 83 points. Yes, 67 were with the Rangers, who were a bad team that year, in 62 games (more than an 80 point pace). The team was -70 for the season, with the guys they relied upon (Greschner, Espo and Middleton) having bad +/-, which goes with the territory. The Rangers were decent in 78-79 and Esposito was -1, at age 36. Virtually every player starts to go "-" after the age of 30.
@Goldenage said:
Without Bobby Orr in 1975 Phil had 80 something points and was a horrific minus thirty eight.
1966 Bruins 46 points.
Orr +1
Age 18
1975 Rangers 67 points
Esposito. -38
Age 30
What are you talking about?
In 75-76, at age 33, Esposito had 83 points. Yes, 67 were with the Rangers, who were a bad team that year, in 62 games (more than an 80 point pace). The team was -70 for the season, with the guys they relied upon (Greschner, Espo and Middleton) having bad +/-, which goes with the territory. The Rangers were decent in 78-79 and Esposito was -1, at age 36. Virtually every player starts to go "-" after the age of 30.
What I am talking about is exactly what I said in the previous post.
Phil is an 80 point per season guy without Orr.
He stays in Chicago he wins no cup and no HOF either. Montreal and Boston destroy him in the 70’s.
@Goldenage said:
Without Bobby Orr in 1975 Phil had 80 something points and was a horrific minus thirty eight.
1966 Bruins 46 points.
Orr +1
Age 18
1975 Rangers 67 points
Esposito. -38
Age 30
What are you talking about?
In 75-76, at age 33, Esposito had 83 points. Yes, 67 were with the Rangers, who were a bad team that year, in 62 games (more than an 80 point pace). The team was -70 for the season, with the guys they relied upon (Greschner, Espo and Middleton) having bad +/-, which goes with the territory. The Rangers were decent in 78-79 and Esposito was -1, at age 36. Virtually every player starts to go "-" after the age of 30.
What I am talking about is exactly what I said in the previous post.
Phil is an 80 point per season guy without Orr.
He stays in Chicago he wins no cup and no HOF either. Montreal and Boston destroy him in the 70’s.
@Goldenage said:
Without Bobby Orr in 1975 Phil had 80 something points and was a horrific minus thirty eight.
1966 Bruins 46 points.
Orr +1
Age 18
1975 Rangers 67 points
Esposito. -38
Age 30
What are you talking about?
In 75-76, at age 33, Esposito had 83 points. Yes, 67 were with the Rangers, who were a bad team that year, in 62 games (more than an 80 point pace). The team was -70 for the season, with the guys they relied upon (Greschner, Espo and Middleton) having bad +/-, which goes with the territory. The Rangers were decent in 78-79 and Esposito was -1, at age 36. Virtually every player starts to go "-" after the age of 30.
What I am talking about is exactly what I said in the previous post.
Phil is an 80 point per season guy without Orr.
He stays in Chicago he wins no cup and no HOF either. Montreal and Boston destroy him in the 70’s.
Is this a serious response? Yes or no?
You have more research to do. He was. no Hull or Makita. When they left in the early 70’s Chicago was toast. Montreal and Boston destroyed them from 73 on.
Phil never got over 80 something points without Orr. He could eek into the HOF, but never a Cup.
@Goldenage said:
Without Bobby Orr in 1975 Phil had 80 something points and was a horrific minus thirty eight.
1966 Bruins 46 points.
Orr +1
Age 18
1975 Rangers 67 points
Esposito. -38
Age 30
What are you talking about?
In 75-76, at age 33, Esposito had 83 points. Yes, 67 were with the Rangers, who were a bad team that year, in 62 games (more than an 80 point pace). The team was -70 for the season, with the guys they relied upon (Greschner, Espo and Middleton) having bad +/-, which goes with the territory. The Rangers were decent in 78-79 and Esposito was -1, at age 36. Virtually every player starts to go "-" after the age of 30.
What I am talking about is exactly what I said in the previous post.
Phil is an 80 point per season guy without Orr.
He stays in Chicago he wins no cup and no HOF either. Montreal and Boston destroy him in the 70’s.
Is this a serious response? Yes or no?
You have more research to do. He was. no Hull or Makita. When they left in the early 70’s Chicago was toast. Montreal and Boston destroyed them from 73 on.
Phil never got over 80 something points without Orr. He could eek into the HOF, but never a Cup.
Couldn't answer a straightforward yes or no question with a yes or no answer.
@Goldenage said:
Without Bobby Orr in 1975 Phil had 80 something points and was a horrific minus thirty eight.
1966 Bruins 46 points.
Orr +1
Age 18
1975 Rangers 67 points
Esposito. -38
Age 30
What are you talking about?
In 75-76, at age 33, Esposito had 83 points. Yes, 67 were with the Rangers, who were a bad team that year, in 62 games (more than an 80 point pace). The team was -70 for the season, with the guys they relied upon (Greschner, Espo and Middleton) having bad +/-, which goes with the territory. The Rangers were decent in 78-79 and Esposito was -1, at age 36. Virtually every player starts to go "-" after the age of 30.
What I am talking about is exactly what I said in the previous post.
Phil is an 80 point per season guy without Orr.
He stays in Chicago he wins no cup and no HOF either. Montreal and Boston destroy him in the 70’s.
Is this a serious response? Yes or no?
You have more research to do. He was. no Hull or Makita. When they left in the early 70’s Chicago was toast. Montreal and Boston destroyed them from 73 on.
Phil never got over 80 something points without Orr. He could eek into the HOF, but never a Cup.
Couldn't answer a straightforward yes or no question with a yes or no answer.
Interesting.
Just an FYI.
People have the freedom in America to answer questions the way they want to and not the way the person asking the question wants them to.
@Goldenage said:
Without Bobby Orr in 1975 Phil had 80 something points and was a horrific minus thirty eight.
1966 Bruins 46 points.
Orr +1
Age 18
1975 Rangers 67 points
Esposito. -38
Age 30
What are you talking about?
In 75-76, at age 33, Esposito had 83 points. Yes, 67 were with the Rangers, who were a bad team that year, in 62 games (more than an 80 point pace). The team was -70 for the season, with the guys they relied upon (Greschner, Espo and Middleton) having bad +/-, which goes with the territory. The Rangers were decent in 78-79 and Esposito was -1, at age 36. Virtually every player starts to go "-" after the age of 30.
What I am talking about is exactly what I said in the previous post.
Phil is an 80 point per season guy without Orr.
He stays in Chicago he wins no cup and no HOF either. Montreal and Boston destroy him in the 70’s.
Is this a serious response? Yes or no?
You have more research to do. He was. no Hull or Makita. When they left in the early 70’s Chicago was toast. Montreal and Boston destroyed them from 73 on.
Phil never got over 80 something points without Orr. He could eek into the HOF, but never a Cup.
Couldn't answer a straightforward yes or no question with a yes or no answer.
Interesting.
Just an FYI.
People have the freedom in America to answer questions the way they want to and not the way the person asking the question wants them to.
I understand that. I am just trying to determine if you’re serious or trolling.
Cherry picking top teams to coach doesn’t make you a great coach….That team should have been the beginning of a dynasty. Instead, they lost to an average (NYI) team. Then, he goes to a very strong Detroit team. Detroit didn’t need him to win those cups….
Detroit ABSOLUTELY needed him to win those Cups. He rebuilt the roster and changed the playing style.
If he's not the GOAT among NHL coaches, I'm dying to hear your pick over him.
Toe Blake and Glen Sather. I put Bowman 3rd.
Bowman rebuilt what roster? What are you even talking about. Take a look at what he was given…LOL. He cherry picked stacked teams….that doesn’t make him a GOAT….he didn’t develop squat.
LOL. Compare the Wings of 93 to the team of 97. Chris Osgood, Shanahan, Vernon, Larionov, Kris Draper, Larry Murphy, Tomas Holmstrom, Darren McCarty, Joe Kocur, Fetisov - all not on the roster when he took over. And he completely changed the playing styles of Yzerman and Fedorov. He remade them from a soft team with no grit into the team that beat up the Avalanche.
Sather won 4 Cups with one team - with Gretzky AND Messier - and bombed with the Rangers. On what planet is that better than 9 Cups with 3 teams?
Cherry picking top teams to coach doesn’t make you a great coach….That team should have been the beginning of a dynasty. Instead, they lost to an average (NYI) team. Then, he goes to a very strong Detroit team. Detroit didn’t need him to win those cups….
Detroit ABSOLUTELY needed him to win those Cups. He rebuilt the roster and changed the playing style.
If he's not the GOAT among NHL coaches, I'm dying to hear your pick over him.
Toe Blake and Glen Sather. I put Bowman 3rd.
Bowman rebuilt what roster? What are you even talking about. Take a look at what he was given…LOL. He cherry picked stacked teams….that doesn’t make him a GOAT….he didn’t develop squat.
LOL. Compare the Wings of 93 to the team of 97. Chris Osgood, Shanahan, Vernon, Larionov, Kris Draper, Larry Murphy, Tomas Holmstrom, Darren McCarty, Joe Kocur, Fetisov - all not on the roster when he took over. And he completely changed the playing styles of Yzerman and Fedorov. He remade them from a soft team with no grit into the team that beat up the Avalanche.
Sather won 4 Cups with one team - with Gretzky AND Messier - and bombed with the Rangers. On what planet is that better than 9 Cups with 3 teams?
Cherry picking top teams to coach doesn’t make you a great coach….That team should have been the beginning of a dynasty. Instead, they lost to an average (NYI) team. Then, he goes to a very strong Detroit team. Detroit didn’t need him to win those cups….
Detroit ABSOLUTELY needed him to win those Cups. He rebuilt the roster and changed the playing style.
If he's not the GOAT among NHL coaches, I'm dying to hear your pick over him.
Toe Blake and Glen Sather. I put Bowman 3rd.
Bowman rebuilt what roster? What are you even talking about. Take a look at what he was given…LOL. He cherry picked stacked teams….that doesn’t make him a GOAT….he didn’t develop squat.
LOL. Compare the Wings of 93 to the team of 97. Chris Osgood, Shanahan, Vernon, Larionov, Kris Draper, Larry Murphy, Tomas Holmstrom, Darren McCarty, Joe Kocur, Fetisov - all not on the roster when he took over. And he completely changed the playing styles of Yzerman and Fedorov. He remade them from a soft team with no grit into the team that beat up the Avalanche.
Sather won 4 Cups with one team - with Gretzky AND Messier - and bombed with the Rangers. On what planet is that better than 9 Cups with 3 teams?
I can sort of see the argument for Blake.
Too funny…..you are confused. You’re talking about management NOT coaching. Managers bring in players. Coaches implement using those players…..
Rangers knew they were limited in time. That’s WHY they brought in Sather….
Too funny…..you are confused. You’re talking about management NOT coaching. Managers bring in players. Coaches implement using those players…..
No confusion. Scotty called the shots on personnel AND changed the style of play. Let's not forget that you said he inherited the team even though over half of it turned over before the Cups.
Boston just traded a 1st for Tyler Bertuzzi from Detroit. He's been hurt a lot this year, and hasn't produced a ton, but had 30 goals last year and Detroit was A LOT better with him in the lineup.
Any updates on the Bruins. Been over a week since last posts. I'm not a big fan of the Bruins but my 2 brothers are and by reading here I can understand a little better when they talk to me.
@pdoidoi said:
Any updates on the Bruins. Been over a week since last posts. I'm not a big fan of the Bruins but my 2 brothers are and by reading here I can understand a little better when they talk to me.
They split with Detroit over the weekend, winning Saturday with a big dosing of help from the officiating.
Comments
Just to be clear> @Raptormaniacs said:
I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
And does this imply that Phil Esposito does not count? Nor John Bucyk? The Phil Esposito who was the best forward in the NHL from 1968 to 1974 and could be accused of developing the "net front guy" on the powerplay when he finally got first unit minutes in Boston? And the John Bucyk who began compiling HOF worthy credentials after the age of 30 when paired with Phil Esposito?
The Bruins were a good team. They got prime years out of Hodge, Sanderson, MacKenzie, Cashman, Stanfield, Marcotte, Awry, Smith, etc. Some of them all-star worthy seasons.
All you have to do is check to see that in 1965 and earlier the Bruins were pathetic. Their records speak for themselves.
Look at Esposito’s NHL stats without Orr to see just how “good “ he was.
He has admitted that he was never in good shape and he and Sanderson led the vodka parties quite often.
Without Orr the Bruins and Espo were absolutely nothing. Him having one good tournament without Orr means nothing.
He gets 80 points a season without Orr in his prime.
Without Bobby Orr in 1975 Phil had 80 something points and was a horrific minus thirty eight.
1966 Bruins 46 points.
Orr +1
Age 18
1975 Rangers 67 points
Esposito. -38
Age 30
In 66-67 with Chicago, Esposito had 60 points in 69 games, with 8 of those points coming on the powerplay. His PPG was 0.88. Orr's PPG was 0.67.
The next season in Boston, his powerplay points went up by 19 to 27. He played 74 games and scored 84 points for 1.14 PPG. Orr's PPG was 0.67.
68-69 - Esposito 1.70 PPG. Orr 0.96 PPG.
69-70 - Esposito 1.30 PPG. Orr 1.58 PPG
70-71 - Esposito 1.95 PPG. Orr 1.78 PPG
71-72 - Esposito 1.75 PPG, Orr 1.54 PPG
72-73 - Esposito 1.67 PPG, Orr 1.60 PPG
73-74 - Esposito 1.86 PPG, Orr 1.65 PPG.
Esposito's major jump in PPG happened prior to Orr's. To claim a 100% causal relationship in Esposito’s production being solely due to Orr is specious. Symbiotic, yes. Bucyk's production only increased after Esposito’s arrival.
Additionally, Esposito led Team Canada in the Summit Series with 13 points in 8 games, without Orr.
I am unclear why that means nothing. Orr never had a tournament without Esposito for comparison.
He averaged 80 points per season when aged 34-37 without Orr on the Rangers.
To say " He gets 80 points a season without Orr in his prime." Is nonsensical.
Again, I have not said anything negative regarding Orr, yet you trash Esposito.
I don't get it. Unless, you're presenting Randy "Macho Man" Savage rather than Randy Poffo.
What are you talking about?
In 75-76, at age 33, Esposito had 83 points. Yes, 67 were with the Rangers, who were a bad team that year, in 62 games (more than an 80 point pace). The team was -70 for the season, with the guys they relied upon (Greschner, Espo and Middleton) having bad +/-, which goes with the territory. The Rangers were decent in 78-79 and Esposito was -1, at age 36. Virtually every player starts to go "-" after the age of 30.
What I am talking about is exactly what I said in the previous post.
Phil is an 80 point per season guy without Orr.
He stays in Chicago he wins no cup and no HOF either. Montreal and Boston destroy him in the 70’s.
Bruins at Tampa Bay tomorrow.
Now we will see what they’re made of. Tampa will play hard.
Is this a serious response? Yes or no?
You have more research to do. He was. no Hull or Makita. When they left in the early 70’s Chicago was toast. Montreal and Boston destroyed them from 73 on.
Phil never got over 80 something points without Orr. He could eek into the HOF, but never a Cup.
Couldn't answer a straightforward yes or no question with a yes or no answer.
Interesting.
Scotty Bowman has him at #40, behind Bob Gainey, which I feel is very appropriate.
Just an FYI.
People have the freedom in America to answer questions the way they want to and not the way the person asking the question wants them to.
I understand that. I am just trying to determine if you’re serious or trolling.
LOL. Compare the Wings of 93 to the team of 97. Chris Osgood, Shanahan, Vernon, Larionov, Kris Draper, Larry Murphy, Tomas Holmstrom, Darren McCarty, Joe Kocur, Fetisov - all not on the roster when he took over. And he completely changed the playing styles of Yzerman and Fedorov. He remade them from a soft team with no grit into the team that beat up the Avalanche.
Sather won 4 Cups with one team - with Gretzky AND Messier - and bombed with the Rangers. On what planet is that better than 9 Cups with 3 teams?
I can sort of see the argument for Blake.
I can't imagine anyone ranking anything subjectively with number thirty being meaningfully different from number 40.
It doesn’t matter> @Tabe said:
Too funny…..you are confused. You’re talking about management NOT coaching. Managers bring in players. Coaches implement using those players…..
Rangers knew they were limited in time. That’s WHY they brought in Sather….
Please don’t confuse the two positions!!!
No confusion. Scotty called the shots on personnel AND changed the style of play. Let's not forget that you said he inherited the team even though over half of it turned over before the Cups.
Boston just traded a 1st for Tyler Bertuzzi from Detroit. He's been hurt a lot this year, and hasn't produced a ton, but had 30 goals last year and Detroit was A LOT better with him in the lineup.
Any updates on the Bruins. Been over a week since last posts. I'm not a big fan of the Bruins but my 2 brothers are and by reading here I can understand a little better when they talk to me.
They split with Detroit over the weekend, winning Saturday with a big dosing of help from the officiating.