Bossy vs Brett Hull

[Mike C]

I mean in all honesty, with all due respect to him, he wasn't the guy that was going to tip the scales. There was a difference even from 1983 to 1984 as far as the quality of postseason from the Islanders. Bossy, Trottier, Potvin and Smith all had worse postseasons than the year before. Gillies surprisingly had a better one. Smith was doing alright until Edmonton in the finals. Potvin had a postseason that was abysmal. 6 points and a -4. If I recall his dad had passed away that spring (or around then). But everyone just seemed gassed on that team, and for good reason. John Tonelli, who never had a Conn Smythe up his sleeve but was always important in the postseason had 4 points that spring. Butch Goring same sort of thing. They just got tired, and worn down, and older.

No doubt they were close to the end of dominance. Lane was a physical presence
A knock you on your ass in front of the net guy. Part of the Islanders game vs Oilers was intimidation. Without Lane that was gone. Lane made an impact on the backline where Paul Boutilier, well he was a really nice guy!

Your points are valid for sure. That's why I said it might not have mattered anyway

Great post!

 

[Crosby2010]

No doubt they were close to the end of dominance. Lane was a physical presence
A knock you on your ass in front of the net guy. Part of the Islanders game vs Oilers was intimidation. Without Lane that was gone. Lane made an impact on the backline where Paul Boutilier, well he was a really nice guy!

Your points are valid for sure. That's why I said it might not have mattered anyway

Great post!

The Isles were a deceptively tough team. I think they still had their fair share of guys who could intimidate. Potvin, Gillies, Nystrom, etc. I like a quote Al Arbour made in an interview when talking about 1984. He said that before the Messier goal in Game 3 he was hoping the Isles could sort of bluff their way to the Cup. In other words, he knew what the Oilers were capable of doing but he was hoping they hadn't figured it out yet.

 

[Staniowski]

The Isles were a deceptively tough team. I think they still had their fair share of guys who could intimidate. Potvin, Gillies, Nystrom, etc. I like a quote Al Arbour made in an interview when talking about 1984. He said that before the Messier goal in Game 3 he was hoping the Isles could sort of bluff their way to the Cup. In other words, he knew what the Oilers were capable of doing but he was hoping they hadn't figured it out yet.

Yeah, I think Arbour was right. After the Islanders swept the Oilers the previous year, and after Game 2 of the '84 series, it looked like the Islanders would pull it off again. It was looking good for the Islanders part way through Game 3. The Oilers desperately needed the big win (scoring a lot of goals) in that game.

The Oilers needed to prove to themselves that they could beat these guys.

 

[Mike C]

Yeah, I think Arbour was right. After the Islanders swept the Oilers the previous year, and after Game 2 of the '84 series, it looked like the Islanders would pull it off again. It was looking good for the Islanders part way through Game 3. The Oilers desperately needed the big win (scoring a lot of goals) in that game.

The Oilers needed to prove to themselves that they could beat these guys.

They just needed to learn how to win. Isles did too. Trading Harris and Lewis.for Goring was difficult but necessary. Butch was a key missing piece and didn't have the ghosts of season's past. Billy always said Lane was just as important because he added needed toughness on the back line

 

[Staniowski]

They just needed to learn how to win. Isles did too. Trading Harris and Lewis.for Goring was difficult but necessary. Butch was a key missing piece and didn't have the ghosts of season's past. Billy always said Lane was just as important because he added needed toughness on the back line

They added half their dynasty defense - Morrow, Langevin, Lane - in the '80 season, when they won their first Cup. Plus Goring and Duane Sutter. These guys were crucial. Goring especially.

 

[Crosby2010]

Yeah, I think Arbour was right. After the Islanders swept the Oilers the previous year, and after Game 2 of the '84 series, it looked like the Islanders would pull it off again. It was looking good for the Islanders part way through Game 3. The Oilers desperately needed the big win (scoring a lot of goals) in that game.

The Oilers needed to prove to themselves that they could beat these guys.

It seems like a done deal in retrospect. And even in Game 3 you look and say "Well, they won 7-2 how hard was it?" Plenty, I think. Gretzky wasn't scoring at the beginning of the Cup final in 1984, the series is tied, the Oilers are losing in the 2nd period 2-1. When Messier scores that goal it unleashed the floodgates. Two goals scored at the end of the 2nd. Then three in the 3rd. Same score in Game 4 and the game was over before it started, Edmonton was in complete control. Ditto Game 5 for the most part. So it looks like it was in the bag, but that Game 3..................there was doubt before there wasn't.

 

[Staniowski]

It seems like a done deal in retrospect. And even in Game 3 you look and say "Well, they won 7-2 how hard was it?" Plenty, I think. Gretzky wasn't scoring at the beginning of the Cup final in 1984, the series is tied, the Oilers are losing in the 2nd period 2-1. When Messier scores that goal it unleashed the floodgates. Two goals scored at the end of the 2nd. Then three in the 3rd. Same score in Game 4 and the game was over before it started, Edmonton was in complete control. Ditto Game 5 for the most part. So it looks like it was in the bag, but that Game 3..................there was doubt before there wasn't.

I re-watched Game 3 a few years ago. The Islanders were somewhat in control through a significant part of the game, but they looked vulnerable. The Oilers, I think, just needed a spark...and they got it.

It was one of the great changing-of-the-guard games in NHL history. An important game in hockey history.

 

[Crosby2010]

I re-watched Game 3 a few years ago. The Islanders were somewhat in control through a significant part of the game, but they looked vulnerable. The Oilers, I think, just needed a spark...and they got it.

It was one of the great changing-of-the-guard games in NHL history. An important game in hockey history.

Probably what helped Messier win the Conn Smythe. His two-way play, plus not being too far behind Gretzky in points that it had to be explained why he won (35 to 26 playoff points). Gretzky struggled the first three games of the final, then unleashed and scored 4 goals in the final two games. But it was Messier who scored goals that would be classified as turning points. Gretzky did about as much as you can do without winning the Conn Smythe in 1984 but I am fine with Messier winning it based on the Cup final.

 

[The Panther]

Getting off-topic, but I do think Denis Potvin was key --- maybe THE key --- to the Isles' 4-straight Cups. No doubt he was individually outperformed by other skilled players at times, but overall, looking at the bigger picture, he was the guy.

From the Oilers' perspective, Potvin was the guy they feared the most, for sure. Paul Coffey still remembers a play in game one of the 1984 Final (coming into which, the Oilers had lost 10 straight games to the Isles!). It was on the surface a 'nothing' play, wherein Messier went down the wing and pushed the defence back a bit. But what everyone on the Oilers noticed was that it was Denis Potvin whom Messier knocked over in his drive to the net. They had never seen Potvin get his ass handed to him on a rush down the ice before. Coffey described it as a huge 'eureka' moment when the Oilers suddenly realized they could take New York, even physically.

Potvin was off in the '84 playoffs, and I think that was the #1 reason the Isles couldn't complete the "Drive for Five". Not saying they would have beat '84 Edmonton, but I think it would have been a lot closer in the end if Potvin was in his c.1979 form.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Getting off-topic, but I do think Denis Potvin was key --- maybe THE key --- to the Isles' 4-straight Cups. No doubt he was individually outperformed by other skilled players at times, but overall, looking at the bigger picture, he was the guy.

From the Oilers' perspective, Potvin was the guy they feared the most, for sure. Paul Coffey still remembers a play in game one of the 1984 Final (coming into which, the Oilers had lost 10 straight games to the Isles!). It was on the surface a 'nothing' play, wherein Messier went down the wing and pushed the defence back a bit. But what everyone on the Oilers noticed was that it was Denis Potvin whom Messier knocked over in his drive to the net. They had never seen Potvin get his ass handed to him on a rush down the ice before. Coffey described it as a huge 'eureka' moment when the Oilers suddenly realized they could take New York, even physically.

Potvin was off in the '84 playoffs, and I think that was the #1 reason the Isles couldn't complete the "Drive for Five". Not saying they would have beat '84 Edmonton, but I think it would have been a lot closer in the end if Potvin was in his c.1979 form.

Al Arbour thought Trottier(who was also injured in the 84 playoffs) was the driving force behind the isles dynasty.