Disingenuous? Me ??!? Well I never...
I think I made the motive clear. And it was quick but I think I got the best of 1968 and even made sure Messier was off Team 1980 because people would remember a better version.
I am still of the opinion that 80s hockey was of a higher quality than 1970s hockey. The talent pool of 1967 was not ready for the NHL to double in size overnight and then triple from the O6 in less than a decade, and then quintuple if you count the WHA.
After the merger, the 30 pro teams of 1977 became 21 pro teams. There was access to strong European talent, even if not USSR guys. There was stronger US talent and a bumper crop of draft talent in North America, that would yield the most competitive Norris races until the early 1990s (when Bourque and Coffey were still in the hunt). The talent kept coming too. The Oilers had Gretzky and drafted well in early drafts, but there was a Stastny, Hawerchuk, and Francis to help out the other guys. Who did the Seals pick up?
Kent Nilsson walked into Atlanta and was the best player on team. Same with Mike Liut in St. Louis, and arguably Rat Bourque in Boston. Even guys who were merely good would fill roles and push guys down to more manageable roles.
The lack of strong new talent meant the E6 and later (E6+) teams were fighting for scraps - it wasn't until 1974 that an E6 team beat an O6 team in a playoff series. It wasn't until 1975 that the NHL regular season standings featured 2 non O6 teams in the top 6. E6+ were two thirds of the league - the bottom two thirds.
So there's the argument. The 1980 and later contingent was hugely talented and technically part of a contraction in the NA hockey market. The league got better. The 1968 and later guys weren't anywhere near as good, and the league kept watering things down after it was clear that the first E6 teams didn't have enough talent. What is your explanation on why the league strength was stronger in the 68-onwards era compared to the 80-onwards era?
Oh, I wise guy, ehh? Why I oughta...
I don't think I agree with this actually. The games I watch from the early 80's are not good hockey, they're sloppy, unkempt and there isn't consistency shift to shift or even game to game...they're kind of a mess...truth be told, I expected the opposite...but the post-expansion ('67 to '72 area) games are a little tighter, a little more organized...it's the spacing really that drives it for me, you can tell a lot about the game by the spacing and the gaps I feel like...in the early 80's, they're wonky and just off...I mean, the Islanders are right. The Islanders are well structured for that time...support triangles all over the ice, they are well coached from a schematics point of view...
Somewhere I made a long post (oh really?) about the league compensating and the ebbs and flows of talent broken down into player type...it could be the trial that I'm on in the player evaluation thread haha...I look at it, and maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but I look at the O6 -> E6 transition in that the talent pool could largely support that move...there were enough goalies, though it was kind of the end of an era for some and it likely extended their careers, maybe three years earlier would have been better, but no matter...there were enough defensively capable forwards and defensemen around to support the move...I think the gamebreakers were fleeting, I think the E6 teams struggled to find puck carrying centers and that limited their ability offensively...but defensively, given the circumstances, I felt like those teams could hang vs my expectations...
As two-way players and the last of that possibly greatest generation of goaltenders wore off and the effects of Orr were not yet fully felt from the youth level, I feel like the game over-compensated for the lack of offensively skilled players that it had in the doubling phase and focused almost solely on that...so, by the time it made the one-dimensional offensive player, the strong two-way players and goaltending at attritioned away...
The upbringing of prospects seems to have changed with the advent of the Entry Draft...sensibly, the time expired on the last of the sponsorship era players (that is, roughly, like Euro soccer/football is today) right as the 70's were ending...so now we have a different look and feel to the youth/junior levels and different types of players coming out of these leagues...well, all these players can funnel freely into the show (or shows, as it were, til 1979...though one was a sideshow) because there are so many roster spots to be filled just as the last of the generation of really well-rounded players is dying off, the last of the workhorse goalies (1965 saw the backup goalie rule, this trickle down into youth development provided challenges to teams with limited ice) is dying off...and, yeah, the number of teams does vary before settling on 21 for a decade, but roster size also moves...expanding in 1972 and again in 1982 if memory serves.
So maybe the drum that I beat about the talent being "diluted" is a little bit of misnomer, because you could reason that "talent" is an ambiguous term...I think it might be more apt to look at what player types were available, as opposed to just saying, "ah, the league was weaker"...
That said, I think the game was loosey goosey in the 80's, I think when your talent (there that is again) is stretched thin, I think the first thing that's jettisoned is the more complete player, I think that goes without saying as it's an obvious point to make...and as such, there are consequences to league quality. Where as in 1967, I think the available player base had a lot of players that grew up wanting to be like the players that won all the time...what did Montreal always have? A slew of good, complete players. Beliveau was a star in Montreal, Henri Richard...Gordie Howe in Detroit was a star...that's not an exclusive list certainly, but the point is there were a lot more disciples of those players and that influence because it was achievable at a lesser scale...Maurice Richard was not a complete player, he was a streak and score winger with probably the best technical skills on that side of 1967...in order to duplicate his efforts you need to have a boat load of skill...a lesser Maurice Richard might not make it...a lesser Gordie Howe makes it because he can play on your third line...ya know what I mean?
Remember all the Lindros clones that were drafted after Lindros was? Brad Isbister and all these big oafs that all had a fatal flaw...? Some of them figured it out by playing the potential card until they were 32 (Chris Gratton) and then some of them just never made it at all (Hugh Jessiman was the last one of this breed I think)...young players want to imitate someone, but if you've ever been assigned a goal in your life, it has to be achievable or else it's demoralizing...Jaromir Jagr was my favorite player. Did I ever pretend to be Jagr when I played? No. Not good enough. Not big enough. Can't do it. Not achievable. Who do I play like now? Patric Hornqvist. I steal everything from him. Achievable. My last men's league I must have broke shooting pct. record...10 goals on 15 shots for the season (I was playing two levels too high for me haha), all deflection goals...if I modeled my game after Jagr and wasn't good enough, I would have served no purpose because I'm just a skill guy that isn't skilled enough...with Hornqvist (what round is he available in for vote, by the way?), I have a distinct purpose and I fill a need, so I make the league...
I wanted to address more of your post, I only got through like two paragraphs I think...but I want to be done typing for now...and you want to be done reading, no doubt...
