Al Arbour Comment

[Hawkey Town 18]

I was watching one of the NHL Network's "Pioneers" programs last night that featured Al Arbour. Most of the program was about his time coaching, but there was a small segment about his playing days. The interviewer asked him about his Original 6 days in Detroit and they spoke of how hard it was to keep your job. I have heard many times how much competition there was back then, players would play through very bad injuries because they were afraid to give another guy a chance to steal their spot. When the interviewer asked Arbour about it hewent as far to say that,

"If you kept the top 4 or 5 star players on each team, you could swap out the rest of the team for guys on the minor league/farm team, and there would be no difference."


Is this actually true or is it slightly exaggerated to illustrate how tough the competition was for roster spots in the O6 era?

Click to read more...

 

[seventieslord]

I was watching one of the NHL Network's "Pioneers" programs last night that featured Al Arbour. Most of the program was about his time coaching, but there was a small segment about his playing days. The interviewer asked him about his Original 6 days in Detroit and they spoke of how hard it was to keep your job. I have heard many times how much competition there was back then, players would play through very bad injuries because they were afraid to give another guy a chance to steal their spot. When the interviewer asked Arbour about it hewent as far to say that,

"If you kept the top 4 or 5 star players on each team, you could swap out the rest of the team for guys on the minor league/farm team, and there would be no difference."


Is this actually true or is it slightly exaggerated to illustrate how tough the competition was for roster spots in the O6 era?

The true answer is probably in-between. Look at today's talent pool. After the top 30 or so players, picking the next 100 best could go a number of ways. Difference is, they're all in the NHL because there are 30 teams and larger rosters.

 

[Axxellien]

Original 6 Talent Pool:

Well, depended to a certain extent on each team's style...When a team's spare/reserve pool broke down, was depleted or ran out, it could spell deep trouble...Re: My "Canadiens Jr." thread....Interesting observation by someone who should know!!

 

[Axxellien]

Detroit, Chicago, Boston Rangers:

Mr. Arbour could have said the above about Detroit & the depth they possessed, Not so much the Chicago Hawks...And certainly the Bruins or the Rangers...I mean you could, but You could not expect to win much!! LOL...Lack of proper Reserve Back Up talent translated in mediocre results!!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Talent

I was watching one of the NHL Network's "Pioneers" programs last night that featured Al Arbour. Most of the program was about his time coaching, but there was a small segment about his playing days. The interviewer asked him about his Original 6 days in Detroit and they spoke of how hard it was to keep your job. I have heard many times how much competition there was back then, players would play through very bad injuries because they were afraid to give another guy a chance to steal their spot. When the interviewer asked Arbour about it hewent as far to say that,

"If you kept the top 4 or 5 star players on each team, you could swap out the rest of the team for guys on the minor league/farm team, and there would be no difference."


Is this actually true or is it slightly exaggerated to illustrate how tough the competition was for roster spots in the O6 era?

If the discussion is limited to talent then there was very little difference and injured or problematic players could be replaced with little difficulty. On the other hand players that fit a specific role on a team were not as easy to replace. Example a Bob Turner with the Canadiens could play defense or forward and kill penalties.Two positions plus a specialty from one roster spot.

Yes there were better defensemen in the minors or better forwards in the minors but they could not fill two roster spots or assume a specialty role.

Most teams had a number of such players that could play various positions at the NHL level. That is why a number of bottom half roster types had 5+ season careers. Certain players like Ron Stewart, Doug Mohns or later Ed Westfall, Jim Roberts had much longer careers.

 

[Big Phil]

I was watching one of the NHL Network's "Pioneers" programs last night that featured Al Arbour. Most of the program was about his time coaching, but there was a small segment about his playing days. The interviewer asked him about his Original 6 days in Detroit and they spoke of how hard it was to keep your job. I have heard many times how much competition there was back then, players would play through very bad injuries because they were afraid to give another guy a chance to steal their spot. When the interviewer asked Arbour about it hewent as far to say that,

"If you kept the top 4 or 5 star players on each team, you could swap out the rest of the team for guys on the minor league/farm team, and there would be no difference."


Is this actually true or is it slightly exaggerated to illustrate how tough the competition was for roster spots in the O6 era?

It's pretty accurate. I think there are exceptions like the Red Wings and the Habs of the 1950s. They had good depth players still. But yeah the Original 6 was tough. There weren't passengers then which is why I smirk when posters think it was so easy to crack the NHL then. You had to be among the 120 best in the world to be in the NHL and I don't know what universe that would ever be easy in.

Plus the minor leaguers were good too. People complain that Cherry only played one game in the NHL and was awful. Well, until expansion came in 1967 the minor leagues were almost like the 6 new expansion teams post 1967. There was tough competition then too

 

[Jarko2004]

Mr. Arbour could have said the above about Detroit & the depth they possessed, Not so much the Chicago Hawks...And certainly the Bruins or the Rangers...I mean you could, but You could not expect to win much!! LOL...Lack of proper Reserve Back Up talent translated in mediocre results!!

Hmm....well Detroit made use of that depth in 66-67, putting 38 players on the ice. It still earned them a last place finish (something they got good and used to over the next 2 decades).

 

[pappyline]

I was watching one of the NHL Network's "Pioneers" programs last night that featured Al Arbour. Most of the program was about his time coaching, but there was a small segment about his playing days. The interviewer asked him about his Original 6 days in Detroit and they spoke of how hard it was to keep your job. I have heard many times how much competition there was back then, players would play through very bad injuries because they were afraid to give another guy a chance to steal their spot. When the interviewer asked Arbour about it hewent as far to say that,

"If you kept the top 4 or 5 star players on each team, you could swap out the rest of the team for guys on the minor league/farm team, and there would be no difference."


Is this actually true or is it slightly exaggerated to illustrate how tough the competition was for roster spots in the O6 era?

Bit of an exaggeration maybe but probably not far off the mark. Certainly players played injured to keep their jobs. Bill Dineen was one who ruined his career because he was forced to play injured. I recently had a conversation with a star player frim the 50's who related that you had no bargainig power whatsoever. Even as a star you didn't feel safe in your job.

 

[Axxellien]

Al Arbour:

Al Arbour is yet ANOTHER Defenseman who laboured long & hard in Rochester!! The Leafs/Americans depth, especially on Defense was incredible!! No wonder Don Cherry claimed, quite rightly, That the Leafs feared playing the Leafs in the Pre-Season exhibition matches!!

 

[Mayor Bee]

I think it's exaggerated a bit. Figure that pretty much every old-timer I've ever talked to or read stories/interviews from talks about the fact that no team had any second thoughts about benching a player with an upcoming bonus (if there was a $1,000 bonus for scoring 20 goals, they'd scale back on the playing time of a guy with 18 goals so he couldn't hit that mark). They talk about the intimidating tactics used by management to keep pay down, plus the collusion amongst teams that took place.

I have a difficult time imagining that there was the amount of continuity of depth players over a number of years when it would have been a lot cheaper (and caused a lot less grumbling) to bring up a younger guy who could be bullied by management and also be inherently cheaper to pay anyway.