Bobby Orr - why he was not a forward?

[Vladsky]

Mr. Orr is known for having revolutionized the game by establishing the case for an attacking D-man, with exceptionally high point production at the peak of his career.

So, if attack was his key skill, why Bruins would not use him as a two-way forward instead? Am I alone in thinking that, in such case, his partnership with Big Phil could have resulted in a bigger impact (in terms of points/wins)?

 

[revolverjgw]

I wonder what his coaches/mentors thought about this when he was really young and just developing, with no professional precedent for a player like him. Did any of them try to dissuade him from playing D? Did they encourage him to stick with it, or even try to force him into changing?

 

[begbeee]

Sometimes forwards do better with defensman with great breakaway initial pass than with classical playmaker.
V. Bure - Housley, Selanne - Housley

I am not sayin' it's Orr's case, but playmaking center is not always the best option for sniper.

 

[Axxellien]

Orr as a Forward:

...When Orr joined the Bruins in 1966, Legendary Coach & GM Hap Emms tried to play Orr as a Forward, but without success...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Discussed Before

From the Legends of Hockey - Bucko McDonald, one of Bobby Orr's early coaches:

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/SearchPlayer.jsp?player=13620

By the time Bobby Orr was playing youth hockey and later in the OHA and the NHL, the game had evolved to three forward lines and two defense pairings.In youth hockey the elite regional teams had not extended beyond the large metropolitan areas.

Regardless of the brief generalized comment there are certain game and coaching realities especially in youth hockey. Usually up to Bantam at that time a team had a very wide talent range but since parents paid for the kids to play there was an expectation of equal ice time and opportunity on one hand and the expectation of concentrated development for the better players on the other hand.

If the best player on the team could play defense, very few could, then the coach would play him on defense since he would be on the ice at least 1/2 the time vs 1/3 of the time as a center or forward. Also when you have three forward units rotating with two defense pairings then over the course of a game all the forwards get roughly the same amount of ice time with the best player who is playing defense without disrupting lines,etc. As a center only two of the forwards would have playing time with the best player.If a coach wanted to he could also create a three game rotation giving each defenseman time with the best defenseman.

Finally if the opposing coach wanted to play his best player against your player who was on defense then he would have to completely adjust his lines and playing times to your teams or move his best player back to defense which would negate certain advantages because the other youngster would be playing an unfamiliar position.

So from the developmental standpoint, both team and individually, playing a Bobby Orr on defense had advantages to say nothing of the competitive advantage that it produced.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I wonder what his coaches/mentors thought about this when he was really young and just developing, with no professional precedent for a player like him. Did any of them try to dissuade him from playing D? Did they encourage him to stick with it, or even try to force him into changing?

Encouraged and mentored him to it actually, it was his coach, Wilfred "Bucko" McDonald, that put him on D in the first place when he was 11.
McDonald was himself, an NHL all-star d-man that played in the 30's and 40's.

Part of it was also that Bobby was so good, you wanted him on the ice for as much of the game as possible and the easiest way to achieve that was to have him play D.


EDIT: 58 beat me to it while I was typing

 

[Eisen]

Mr. Orr is known for having revolutionized the game by establishing the case for an attacking D-man, with exceptionally high point production at the peak of his career.

So, if attack was his key skill, why Bruins would not use him as a two-way forward instead? Am I alone in thinking that, in such case, his partnership with Big Phil could have resulted in a bigger impact (in terms of points/wins)?

I often wondered myself. And it' snot like he had no skills in traffic. He was great with the quick step from his own end, but he could play very well in the zone as well.
Edit: obviously already answered But it stil seems somehow weird that you couldn't doubleshift him with other players on the offense. It`s not like it has never been done before Orr's time

 

[Analyzer*]

Defense you get to play more. I think that's why Mike Green plays it.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Defense you get to play more. I think that's why Mike Green plays it.

If that's true I'm not sure why. He would get more points and be more effective as a forward by the looks of it. Atleast in Bobby Orr's case he could defend exceptionally well.

 

[Killion]

Part of it was also that Bobby was so good, you wanted him on the ice for as much of the game as possible and the easiest way to achieve that was to have him play D.

There you go. With usually only 2-3 defence pairings, his ice-time was maximized. Additionally, playing defence certainly gives one a different perspective, an over-view of the play not accorded a Center or Winger (though arguable in some cases). Quarterbacking the forward play to a large extent. I tend to think of him as "Rover", a throwback to that position eliminated as the game evolved.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Red Line

There you go. With usually only 2-3 defence pairings, his ice-time was maximized. Additionally, playing defence certainly gives one a different perspective, an over-view of the play not accorded a Center or Winger (though arguable in some cases). Quarterbacking the forward play to a large extent. I tend to think of him as "Rover", a throwback to that position eliminated as the game evolved.

Very astute comment. Bucko McDonald played in the NHL before the introduction of the Red Line in 1943. Bobby Orr's talents blended the two eras in a fashion that maximized offense from the defensemen - Shore, Clancy, etc. while being responsible defensively.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

So I wonder then, did the Bruins only play with 2 or 3 defense pairings during Orr's first couple of years in the NHL? If only 2 pairings, his TOI would be extremely high, which brings up a previous thread topic about his TOI. Also, I would think that he was just so damn good defensively and covered so much ice, it made sense to keep him on defense as opposed to forward.

 

[JWells16]

I play as an attacking defenseman, and I struggle somewhat when I'm placed on the wings or center... mores the wings. I like being able to see everything in front of me, and I can pick and choose my time to go on the attack.

 

[Canadiens1958]

TOI Estimates

So I wonder then, did the Bruins only play with 2 or 3 defense pairings during Orr's first couple of years in the NHL? If only 2 pairings, his TOI would be extremely high, which brings up a previous thread topic about his TOI. Also, I would think that he was just so damn good defensively and covered so much ice, it made sense to keep him on defense as opposed to forward.

Hard to do for Orr's first two seasons since injuries forced him to miss 33 games and the Bruins defense other than Ted Green was very young so they would dress an extra defenseman and play Ed Westfall back on defense at times.


Most teams would carry 5 defensemen with a sixth being a swing man who was a specialist or could play as a penalty killing forward. Previously thru the fifties the trend was to 4 defensemen with the 5th being a swing man.

Usual TOI break down would be first pairing 32-36 minutes with the PP d-man getting the extra time. 24-28 minutes for the second pairing. The fifth defenseman depending on his other responsibilities would be in the 10-15 minute range. Do not recall any team during the O6 era rotating three defensive pairings on a regular basis..

Another consideration was that in the O6 era teams regularly played 3 games in 4 night and 4 games in 5 nights a few times during the season. Injury call-ups were not as efficient and teams did not carry extra bodies that did not dress. Under injuri circumstances d-men like Harvey would play over 45 minutes.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I've wondered the same with Coffey as well (even more so, because Coffey was significantly worse defensively).

Would we rank these guys differently if Orr was a 160 pt forward and annual Selke candidate? What if Coffey was a 160 pt forward known for hard backchecking?

Ultimately, I think these two were such strong and fast skaters, amazing puck handlers and playmakers (moreso than goal scorers) that it ultimately took more advantage of their strengths by having them play back at defense and giving them more time and ice to work with.

 

[WingsFan95]

Mr. Orr is known for having revolutionized the game by establishing the case for an attacking D-man, with exceptionally high point production at the peak of his career.

So, if attack was his key skill, why Bruins would not use him as a two-way forward instead? Am I alone in thinking that, in such case, his partnership with Big Phil could have resulted in a bigger impact (in terms of points/wins)?

Esposito owns all his Art Rosses to Orr.

And as has been mentioned, Orr being on the ice longer was a benefactor to the team.

I also don't think his points production would have been much higher, though he would have won an Art Ross most seasons he played.

 

[Rhiessan71]

A lot of people are forgetting, or never saw, the level that Orr could control the whole game.

As great as Gretzky was, his control of the game was limited by his position.

Great D-men like Harvey, Orr, Bourque and Lidstrom had the ability to control the entire ice, set the pace and direct the puck. Even guys like Pronger and Macinnis (Big Al albeit, later in his career) you saw a rink wide control. That wasn't the case with all higher scoring D-men or top defensive guys either. Guys like Coffey, Housley didn't control much in the def zone, just like guys like Stevens and Chara didn't/don't control the off zone that much.

All that being said, no one controlled an entire game like Orr did and quite frankly, that kind of control isn't possible from a forward position.

There has been some debate over just how much ice-time Orr had but I'm a firm believer that it was easily 30+ mins a game and if not for his "rests" in the penalty box, it would of been closer to 40.

 

[Killion]

A lot of people are forgetting, or never saw, the level that Orr could control the whole game.

True. The other thing to remember is that most, not all, but most defencemen of that era & earlier were not the greatest of skaters, unlike Orr, who came equipped with a 5th gear while everyone else couldnt go much beyond 4th or if so, couldnt maintain it for long.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

How often do we hear an analyst mention that such and such team needs to pick up a puck-moving defenseman if they want to improve, or that a successful team is keyed by mobility on the back end? These types of d-men are a valued commodity, that's why you're not going to move one to forward.

It's tougher to defend against a great rushing defenseman as well. A traditional LW-C-RW attack is defended by the opposing LW-C-RW simply picking up their opposite man. But what do you do if an Orr or Coffey suddenly comes barreling up the middle? It's more likely for confusion to set in and a defensive mistake to be made, especially if the coach hasn't come up with a plan to instruct his players how to react to this situation.

As great as Gretzky was, members of the 80's Flames will tell you that it was Paul Coffey flying up the ice that they feared the most.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Wingers and Centers

How often do we hear an analyst mention that such and such team needs to pick up a puck-moving defenseman if they want to improve, or that a successful team is keyed by mobility on the back end? These types of d-men are a valued commodity, that's why you're not going to move one to forward.

It's tougher to defend against a great rushing defenseman as well. A traditional LW-C-RW attack is defended by the opposing LW-C-RW simply picking up their opposite man. But what do you do if an Orr or Coffey suddenly comes barreling up the middle? It's more likely for confusion to set in and a defensive mistake to be made, especially if the coach hasn't come up with a plan to instruct his players how to react to this situation.

As great as Gretzky was, members of the 80's Flames will tell you that it was Paul Coffey flying up the ice that they feared the most.

Overlooked in today's NHL is the fact that the wingers often negate the effects of a rushing defenseman by taking the straight line to the net as opposed to the wide arc the opens up the middle and creates wider attacking lanes while forcing the opposing team to defend against more options.Likewise the centers have to do the little things that allow the defenseman to rush, impede the forecheck, set picks, cover and support,etc. The Oilers' and Bruins' forwards with Coffey and Orr handled these aspects very well.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Overlooked in today's NHL is the fact that the wingers often negate the effects of a rushing defenseman by taking the straight line to the net as opposed to the wide arc the opens up the middle and creates wider attacking lanes while forcing the opposing team to defend against more options.Likewise the centers have to do the little things that allow the defenseman to rush, impede the forecheck, set picks, cover and support,etc. The Oilers' and Bruins' forwards with Coffey and Orr handled these aspects very well.

Very good point and IMO that is the direct result of today's coaches coaching not to lose instead of coaching to win.