johnnyhasbeen Posted March 2, 2016 Author Share Posted March 2, 2016 Don Cherry didn't have a system. So Orr was free to play, MT has one system and that stifles. Should have know a simple statement would get a counter response though. Some of you are very hard to discuss things with. Always have to take the counter view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Don Cherry didn't have a system. So Orr was free to play, MT has one system and that stifles. Should have know a simple statement would get a counter response though. Some of you are very hard to discuss things with. Always have to take the counter view. Hey don't insult le genius. he has a system. It's called "make sure you stop everything Carey". For some reason it doesn't work when Carey's injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted March 2, 2016 Author Share Posted March 2, 2016 That's why the system isn't working! Carey is not doing his job! That is too funny Hey don't insult le genius. he has a system. It's called "make sure you stop everything Carey". For some reason it doesn't work when Carey's injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 If we "unleashed" P.K Subban in the same way, would that be more of a benefit to the team? Sure he would increase offensive chances for and against, but would that result in more or fewer losses? As a fan I think we all want to see P.K skate up the ice by himself Subby-dooing around everyone and going top cheese. I am just not convinced that it is in the best interest of the team in today's NHL. No, not really. It drives me nuts when Subban goes one against five which most of the time results in a weak shot on net (or missing altogether) and an odd man rush the other way. If he actually scored on them more than once in a blue moon I'd be more for him doing it but it seldom results in much of anything positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 No, not really. It drives me nuts when Subban goes one against five which most of the time results in a weak shot on net (or missing altogether) and an odd man rush the other way. If he actually scored on them more than once in a blue moon I'd be more for him doing it but it seldom results in much of anything positive. Your not much of a Subban fan eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted March 3, 2016 Author Share Posted March 3, 2016 Regarding plus minus as being the end all be all of who was the greatest d-man, which I think is not the only stat that should be looked at, that makes Robinson by far the best player of all-time and Orr the best Player of the '71 season. But as I said, that is one stat and not the one I use to judge a d-man's ability to control the game. Harvey's career was over before that stat was compiled so we don't know if his was better or not. Could be he was a plus 200 at times, but there is no stats to prove what he was plus minus wise. It would only be conjuncture. There are reasons though that many of the old timers mention Harvey over Orr as best on the blue line. Larry Robinson, career, +730 Bobby Orr, career, +597 Again, Orr was one of the best players of all time. I stand by my belief he was not the best d-man. You are welcome to believe what Don Cherry believes. I don't remember it the same as he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 597 in 657 games 730 in 1384 games One played on the greatest dynasty and winningest team of all time.... the other didn't. try again. but you can claim its only don cherry who calls orr the best defenceman of all time and denigrate orr that way if you want. Because fact is, its not just Cherry. Its pretty much universally regarded amongst the players, coaches and analysts of the era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted March 3, 2016 Author Share Posted March 3, 2016 Orr played on the winningest and most stacked team of his time too. Take a look at his lineup. It was a pretty loaded team. Remember now, I am not denigrating Orr ( you really like that word don't you) I admit he was one of the best players of all time. I question his play as a defenceman and always have. Yes he was a plus 120, on a team that was a plus 170 versus teams that were minus 120. The scoring in the NHL during his years playing was silly. There were goalies n the league that had been pulled from semi pro teams to fill in rosters. Half the teams did not have more than a handful of players NHL quality and they were the players teams deemed unworthy of protecting in the expansion draft. There was no such separation from the top 5 teams to the rest of the league in any other era. That alone has to be responsible for some of those numbers. Robinson continued his consistant good numbers through the 80s on a very weak team. His numbers are not only from a 5 year dynasty as you would make it out. Try again. Orr was great, not the best d-man but great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 The entertainment of this thread is pretty much exhausted when you realize it isn't a masterclass in ribbing but a broken opinion. There's no explaining Orr to you. You can't even see what your own words mean. Calling Orr a fourth forward is an insult. I'll remember to ignore your next thread, which I'm guessing will be how Dominik Hasek wasn't a great goalie but an overachiving fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Anyway, the best dman is Lidstrom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 #19 wasn't bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 I don't even know why this is a thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 #19 wasn't bad. #19 was great. Orr was amongst the greatest of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Orr played on the winningest and most stacked team of his time too. Take a look at his lineup. It was a pretty loaded team. Remember now, I am not denigrating Orr ( you really like that word don't you) I admit he was one of the best players of all time. I question his play as a defenceman and always have. Yes he was a plus 120, on a team that was a plus 170 versus teams that were minus 120. The scoring in the NHL during his years playing was silly. There were goalies n the league that had been pulled from semi pro teams to fill in rosters. Half the teams did not have more than a handful of players NHL quality and they were the players teams deemed unworthy of protecting in the expansion draft. There was no such separation from the top 5 teams to the rest of the league in any other era. That alone has to be responsible for some of those numbers. Robinson continued his consistant good numbers through the 80s on a very weak team. His numbers are not only from a 5 year dynasty as you would make it out. Try again. Orr was great, not the best d-man but great. Orr's bruins teams were very good. They weren't the greatest team the NHL has ever seen in the 1976 habs. But sure. Also being +124 on a team that is +170 is DAMN impressive.... being on the ice for over 2/3rds of the plus of the entire team... thats pretty darn good. And yeah there were weak teams in the early 70s but no one player dominated those teams in the way Orr did. But sure, keep saying he isn't the best defenseman of all time. The Bias is comical at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovett's Magnatones Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 JHB, what were you hoping to accomplish with this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 JHB, what were you hoping to accomplish with this thread? Doesn't matter now, lol. I would be interested in hearing Johnnie's take on the differences in the game today, and say the 60's or 70's, since he was born long enough ago to have watched hockey diligently all these years... it's nice to hear stories from back in the day, I should say perspectives from back then. I am 54 and have watched hockey since I was around 5, before my family's first color TV, and it's astounding how the game has changed, even since '93, from which I have the entire Habs playoff run on VHS. Like I said before, Don Cherry isn't always wrong, like some older peeps can't remember yesterday, but they can exact out details from 50 years ago, I know, I am getting up there, lol. No sense hammering away at Johnny, he obviously doesn't give a rat's ass what we think anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Yeah, I too like hearing the "old timer's" perspective, even if we ultimately don't think it stands up to scrutiny. It's still interesting, like having your uncle telling tales about the Habs of yesteryear. And like I say, I enjoy his militant loathing of the Bs. He's a soul-brother in that sense. That said, if I remember sources I've read in the past, Orr was controversial early in his career precisely because many old-school hockey types of that era felt it was inappropriate for a defenceman to play the way Orr did. Sounds like Johnny is clinging to that position, long after Orr completely redefined what it was possible for defenders to do. The only other player who changed the game like that would be Jacques Plante - who also had to eat a lot of sh*t for wandering from his crease to play the puck, and of course for wearing his mask. It makes little sense to condemn such players as not "truly" playing their position, when their extraordinary contribution was precisely to redefine the nature of the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted March 3, 2016 Author Share Posted March 3, 2016 JHB, what were you hoping to accomplish with this thread? Some controversy and distraction from the pathetic season. Some insight into why I disagree with MT's handling of Subban and Beaulieu, That in my eye all blue liners do not need to be defensively responsible to be effective players. Oh yeah, and that the Bruins suck, one and all and Orr was one so therefore.....sucked. Don Cherry was the head of the suckage and still inhales a big one. One more thing, that some people around here can not debate without taking personal shots because they haven't reached that level of maturity yet. I would still like a reason why Orr didn't play vs Russia when he had not missed a game the season before and didn't the season after. I still think that was wrong. Then again, didn't need him, even a lame duck like Henderson did ok for us. Never did much else. If he hadn't scored there would anyone remember him? He would be like Ron Ellis. Yes, Leafs suck now and then too! I think I managed to accomplish all the above. Oh and KoRP, you hit the nail on the head!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 The tournament was in September 1972.Orr missed many games in the 72-73 season. he only played 63 games that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyhasbeen Posted March 3, 2016 Author Share Posted March 3, 2016 Yes, he missed 9 games at the end of the season and a few through it, if you care to search it. He did have surgery the June before the Summit Series but was skating before hand and played shortly after. Everyone thought he would play and the announcement that he would miss the series shocked the sporting world at the time. It was probably not his decision but that of Eagleson who didn't want his million dollar player to be sidelined seeing half of his team had jumped to the WHL that summer. Doesn't change the fact he was there for his Bruins but not his country. Doesn't change how I felt or feel about him. Great talent, but a friggin Bruin, May not have been his decision, but it was a Bruins decision, and again he was one of them. I understand the Ontario boy thing you are trying to defend, sort of. I am from Dartmouth went to school in Cole harbour but won't be caught supporting Cindy. If you want to worship a Bruin you are welcome to do so. I choose not to and never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 It has nothing to do with being an Ontario boy. It has everything to do with treating him in an unbiased and fair manner. Something you admittedly are not doing cause he was a friggin Bruin. I don't have to like Boston, but I can respect the talent level of Bobby Orr. Admitting that he was the greatest defenceman of all time doesn't mean you like the Bruins, or even like him. Its just being fair and unbiased about it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 One more thing, that some people around here can not debate without taking personal shots because they haven't reached that level of maturity yet. I understand the Ontario boy thing you are trying to defend, sort of. I am from Dartmouth went to school in Cole harbour but won't be caught supporting Cindy. If you want to worship a Bruin you are welcome to do so. I choose not to and never will. People are hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 I don't know where anyone took personal shots at Johnny either. People need to understand that attacking an opinion is not a personal attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 I don't know where anyone took personal shots at Johnny either. People need to understand that attacking an opinion is not a personal attack. You don't seem to understand that calling a person's opinions 'idiotic' or 'stupid' is personal. You could tear them apart any way you see fit, but maybe broaden your vocabulary a bit when doing so? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 You don't seem to understand that calling a person's opinions 'idiotic' or 'stupid' is personal. You could tear them apart any way you see fit, but maybe broaden your vocabulary a bit when doing so? I call them like i see them. Saying Orr is a faker is idiotic and stupid.... its also foolish, asinine, illogical, imbecilic, foolhardy, daft, inane, moronic, senseless, harebrained, fatuous, and thickwitted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts