|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 14, 2015 17:37:51 GMT -5
I keep coming back to this ... look it over ... absorb it ... what does it mean to you ...
|
|
|
Post by blny on May 14, 2015 17:54:37 GMT -5
A time before I was born.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 14, 2015 18:13:21 GMT -5
1968 Cup Championship. We went 12-1 in those playoffs.
Beliveau missed the last 3 games of the series vs. the Blues (had to look up why he was on crutches).
Claude Provost and Dick Duff in the foreground. Toe Blake. Ralph Backstrom peering over his shoulder.
Terry Harper in the very back…..not sure which player is in front of him, although it's most likely a very young Danny Grant.
I also see warriors who played for a mere pittance of today's salaries (even with inflation figured in)….and a coach who would never say, "We were physically and mentally drained…."
Never will we see those times (perennial Cup contenders and champions) again.
Glad I got to witness them….even though it makes me the age I am.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 14, 2015 18:20:56 GMT -5
I forget why….but the Finals started in St. Louis that year. So we won the Cup at home.
Found this tidbit online. I never knew the reason why Blake retired from coaching.
Less than 30 minutes after the Canadiens won the Cup, Canadiens coach Toe Blake announced his retirement. He gave reason that it had been a hard season, but the real reason was that his wife was dying of cancer and he wanted to spend his time with her. The celebration turned to a mournful event with players paying tribute to Blake, many in tears.
In essence, I see the reason I became a Habs' fan.
EDIT: What does it mean to you, Dis?
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on May 14, 2015 18:41:54 GMT -5
1968 Cup Championship. We went 12-1 in those playoffs. Beliveau missed the last 3 games of the series vs. the Blues (had to look up why he was on crutches). Claude Provost and Dick Duff in the foreground. Toe Blake. Ralph Backstrom peering over his shoulder. Terry Harper in the very back…..not sure which player is in front of him, although it's most likely a very young Danny Grant. I also see warriors who played for a mere pittance of today's salaries (even with inflation figured in)….and a coach who would never say, "We were physically and mentally drained…." Never will we see those times (perennial Cup contenders and champions) again. Glad I got to witness them….even though it makes me the age I am. Excellent post CH. .. I totally agree.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 14, 2015 19:48:19 GMT -5
I forget why….but the Finals started in St. Louis that year. So we won the Cup at home. Found this tidbit online. I never knew the reason why Blake retired from coaching. Less than 30 minutes after the Canadiens won the Cup, Canadiens coach Toe Blake announced his retirement. He gave reason that it had been a hard season, but the real reason was that his wife was dying of cancer and he wanted to spend his time with her. The celebration turned to a mournful event with players paying tribute to Blake, many in tears.In essence, I see the reason I became a Habs' fan. EDIT: What does it mean to you, Dis? I was really young and I didn't watch much of the game, but I remember seeing Jean Beliveau come out on his crutches ... does anyone remember him pumping his fist as he approached the Cup ... we all see something different, but it's the look in Beliveau's eyes that hooked me into the shot ... both he and Claude Provost seem to hold the Cup in reverence ... Beliveau's eyes are fixed on it as he addresses the crowd, while a spent Provost looks like he's touching the grail ... Toe Blake is pumping his arm in the air (maybe that's what I remember) ... can't mistake him ... the whole photo suggests that many simply don't understand, or refuse to understand, that it's more than just a trophy ... hockey is akin to religion if you're a 'practicing Habs fan' ... it's not about the game, it's about the Cup ... it's the Cup that's everything if you understand Montreal ... everything is secondary to the Cup ... just looking at this photo is a trigger to the way I grew up ... it was all about the Canadiens ... I'm sure other teams have 'practicing fans' but it's different in Montreal ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 14, 2015 20:04:23 GMT -5
Well put, Dis.
The player directly behind the Cup appears to have a "4" on his jersey. The only numbers with 4 in them on that team were Beliveau, Provost (14), and Mickey Redmond (24).
Hockeystats says Redmond played only 2 playoff games that year. That had to be one of them. Grant and Redmond were rookies that year.
That's what rookies walked into….a constant process of being mentored by leaders, leading, being the mentor….
Much easier to do back then, no question, because of the salary and contract structure.
Different economics in the game back then. The game just seemed so much simpler. Likely because I was a kid.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 14, 2015 20:05:57 GMT -5
I don't mean to be snarky .... But to me, it's just the past, ancient history.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 14, 2015 20:24:25 GMT -5
And what a glorious past it was to have witnessed….
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on May 14, 2015 20:37:03 GMT -5
I don't mean to be snarky .... But to me, it's just the past, ancient history. Unfortunately if you forget about a history as successful as the habs you will do things differently and not have success Imo. Historically the one thing all habs teams had was leadership. I believe everything changed when BG let Saku go, the leadership left and this team became lost. The guys he brought in were not Habs and didn't develop in the organisation. Leaders cannot be bought.... they have to be developed.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 14, 2015 22:16:34 GMT -5
Well put, Dis. The player directly behind the Cup appears to have a "4" on his jersey. The only numbers with 4 in them on that team were Beliveau, Provost (14), and Mickey Redmond (24). Hockeystats says Redmond played only 2 playoff games that year. That had to be one of them. Grant and Redmond were rookies that year. That's what rookies walked into….a constant process of being mentored by leaders, leading, being the mentor…. Much easier to do back then, no question, because of the salary and contract structure. Different economics in the game back then. The game just seemed so much simpler. Likely because I was a kid. Grant and Redmond ... two future 50-goal scorers ... the game might have been simpler because you didn't have to remember names from 30 teams ... I knew a lot of players in the league by their numbers ... in comparison, I know only a few players outside Montreal by their numbers today ... as for the photo, they were a different generation all together ... the owners kept most of the profits and many players took jobs in the off-season to make ends meet ... Phil Esposito drove a truck for the mines in Sault-Ste-Marie when he wasn't playing hockey ... that kind of humility is missing from the game today, but it's also missing everywhere it seems ... Cheers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2015 22:57:26 GMT -5
I don't mean to be snarky .... But to me, it's just the past, ancient history. Agree, and a lonnnnnnnng time ago. Even before the Oilers and Islanders. It was also when players were grossly underpaid and no salary caps so you never had to deal a McDonagh to get a Gomez.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on May 15, 2015 1:32:42 GMT -5
I don't mean to be snarky .... But to me, it's just the past, ancient history. Unfortunately if you forget about a history as successful as the habs you will do things differently and not have success Imo. Historically the one thing all habs teams had was leadership. I believe everything changed when BG let Saku go, the leadership left and this team became lost. The guys he brought in were not Habs and didn't develop in the organisation. Leaders cannot be bought.... they have to be developed. Agree letting Saku go was a mistake. But the loss of leadership and an understanding of the Bleu, Blanc, et Rouge occurred when Captain Carbo was traded - ironically because he was a union man (read: blue collar) like all his predecessors. We haven't won a cup since Carbo left. He understood the meaning of the Habs uniform and the cup which many have alluded to in this thread. As to the photo: it was during a time before the now routine posed team photo around the cup. Players just showing their joy at the achievement and the togetherness. Not knocking the posed photo as it has become a great tradition. I don't see the #4 on the jersey in the photo. I'm thinking that might be Jean Guy Talbot. I have no doubt Mr. Beliveau would be able to tell us in an instant.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 15, 2015 8:21:22 GMT -5
I don't see the #4 on the jersey in the photo. I'm thinking that might be Jean Guy Talbot. I have no doubt Mr. Beliveau would be able to tell us in an instant. Talbot wasn't on that edition. The "4" is visible on the sleeve to the left of the Cup in the picture. The top of his head is just above the Cup….same hairstyle as Redmond's. Another note I've made on this board: Every player and executive with at least 8 Cups is in the Hall of Fame. Claude Provost won 9 Cups…and is not in the Hall. He was the Bob Gainey of his era. An integral part of those 50s and 60s championships.
|
|
|
Post by Gogie on May 15, 2015 8:26:00 GMT -5
I don't see the #4 on the jersey in the photo. I'm thinking that might be Jean Guy Talbot. I have no doubt Mr. Beliveau would be able to tell us in an instant. Talbot wasn't on that edition. The "4" is visible on the sleeve to the left of the Cup in the picture. The top of his head is just above the Cup….same hairstyle as Redmond's. Mickey Redmond - the Mike Wozowski of the '68 Habs. (See who can figure out what I'm talking about.) PS - What the photo means to me more than anything else is that I'm getting pretty long in the tooth. I actually remember Beliveau on crutches.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 15, 2015 8:47:15 GMT -5
I don't get the Monsters Inc. reference, Gogie.
Does it have something to do with being traded to Detroit for Frank Mahovlich?
The Big M was "monstrous" in our '71 and '73 Cups victories.
One of the best moves Sam Pollock made…and he made a lot of great decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Gogie on May 15, 2015 9:10:56 GMT -5
I don't get the Monsters Inc. reference, Gogie. Does it have something to do with being traded to Detroit for Frank Mahovlich? The Big M was "monstrous" in our '71 and '73 Cups victories. One of the best moves Sam Pollock made…and he made a lot of great decisions. OK, I'll let you in on it (I never was good at keeping secrets). In the movie Monsters Inc. there is a part where they show a commercial for the company. Wozowski gets hidden behind the "M", similar to Redmond being hidden behind the Stanley Cup. I know, pretty lame, but that's the first thing I thought of when I saw the picture. I've been watching too much of Monsters Inc. these days (thanks to my granddaughter).
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 15, 2015 9:18:15 GMT -5
I've been watching too much of Monsters Inc. these days (thanks to my granddaughter). grandkids: an excuse to watch the movies you watched with your kids. Princess and the Frog and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang are constantly on (at least they're done with Frozen!). now . . . back to our regularly scheduled dreaming of a Cup.
|
|
|
Post by jkr on May 15, 2015 9:50:44 GMT -5
I don't get the Monsters Inc. reference, Gogie. Does it have something to do with being traded to Detroit for Frank Mahovlich? The Big M was "monstrous" in our '71 and '73 Cups victories. One of the best moves Sam Pollock made…and he made a lot of great decisions. And Pollock must have believed that you have to give up something of value ( like a future 50 goal scorer) to get a star like Mahovlich.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 15, 2015 10:15:19 GMT -5
Yep. But Pollock was always dealing from a position of strength. Something he engineered.
Again, easier to do back then….but he was head and shoulders above his contemporaries.
|
|
|
Post by HABSINFL on May 15, 2015 10:26:41 GMT -5
Had to change Avatar, the old one did not work, Amen
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 15, 2015 10:27:04 GMT -5
I don't mean to be snarky .... But to me, it's just the past, ancient history. Unfortunately if you forget about a history as successful as the habs you will do things differently and not have success Imo. Historically the one thing all habs teams had was leadership. I believe everything changed when BG let Saku go, the leadership left and this team became lost. The guys he brought in were not Habs and didn't develop in the organisation. Leaders cannot be bought.... they have to be developed. I guess I should expand. Because it's been 22 years and counting since we last won a Cup. Back then hockey was a religion and it was all about the Cup or nothing, but that was because there was 6 teams and you only had to be better than a few teams. For the most part, if you made the playoffs, you were in the semi finals. So you only needed to win 8 more games. It was very easy to foster a culture of winning and entitlement. You still needed good management, and scouts mind you. That's over. We may as well get it out of our heads. There are 30 teams now (soon to be 32), and for the most part 16 teams got a shot at winning the Cup each and every year. Our GM downplays the team as underdogs and publicly says things like their goal is to make the playoffs. Even the team sees that its not so much about winning anymore, its more about competing. And while its good to reflect on how many Cups the team has won in a 6 team league, a 12 team league and a 21 team league. Those times are over. Dynasties are over. We can't compare those teams performances, and how they were built to today's era. 22 seasons is the 12th longest Stanley Cup drought. And of the teams with longer droughts, only Toronto, Arizona, San Jose AND Montreal has not been to the Finals since their last Cup win (or entering the league).
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on May 15, 2015 10:58:05 GMT -5
Unfortunately if you forget about a history as successful as the habs you will do things differently and not have success Imo. Historically the one thing all habs teams had was leadership. I believe everything changed when BG let Saku go, the leadership left and this team became lost. The guys he brought in were not Habs and didn't develop in the organisation. Leaders cannot be bought.... they have to be developed. I guess I should expand. Because it's been 22 years and counting since we last won a Cup. Back then hockey was a religion and it was all about the Cup or nothing, but that was because there was 6 teams and you only had to be better than a few teams. For the most part, if you made the playoffs, you were in the semi finals. So you only needed to win 8 more games. It was very easy to foster a culture of winning and entitlement. You still needed good management, and scouts mind you. That's over. We may as well get it out of our heads. There are 30 teams now (soon to be 32), and for the most part 16 teams got a shot at winning the Cup each and every year. Our GM downplays the team as underdogs and publicly says things like their goal is to make the playoffs. Even the team sees that its not so much about winning anymore, its more about competing. And while its good to reflect on how many Cups the team has won in a 6 team league, a 12 team league and a 21 team league. Those times are over. Dynasties are over. We can't compare those teams performances, and how they were built to today's era. 22 seasons is the 12th longest Stanley Cup drought. And of the teams with longer droughts, only Toronto, Arizona, and San Jose has not been to the Finals since their last Cup win (or entering the league). Good points Skilly. I agree that things will never be as they were. Regarding dynasties, I would think that if the Hawks win this year I would consider them a dynasty because they will have won 3 times in 5 years and consider that they have lost a number of quality players because of the cap. If they had been able to keep all of their players after their first cup win, how many cups would they have won so far?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 15, 2015 12:47:53 GMT -5
I guess I should expand. Because it's been 22 years and counting since we last won a Cup. Back then hockey was a religion and it was all about the Cup or nothing, but that was because there was 6 teams and you only had to be better than a few teams. For the most part, if you made the playoffs, you were in the semi finals. So you only needed to win 8 more games. It was very easy to foster a culture of winning and entitlement. You still needed good management, and scouts mind you. That's over. We may as well get it out of our heads. There are 30 teams now (soon to be 32), and for the most part 16 teams got a shot at winning the Cup each and every year. Our GM downplays the team as underdogs and publicly says things like their goal is to make the playoffs. Even the team sees that its not so much about winning anymore, its more about competing. And while its good to reflect on how many Cups the team has won in a 6 team league, a 12 team league and a 21 team league. Those times are over. Dynasties are over. We can't compare those teams performances, and how they were built to today's era. 22 seasons is the 12th longest Stanley Cup drought. And of the teams with longer droughts, only Toronto, Arizona, and San Jose has not been to the Finals since their last Cup win (or entering the league). Good points Skilly. I agree that things will never be as they were. Regarding dynasties, I would think that if the Hawks win this year I would consider them a dynasty because they will have won 3 times in 5 years and consider that they have lost a number of quality players because of the cap. If they had been able to keep all of their players after their first cup win, how many cups would they have won so far? I dont know how many on here would agree with this ... but I saw a program not long ago, and it was interviewing players about dynasties of the past. Once media guy and ex-player put forth that the definition of a dynasty is 3 consectuive Stanley Cups. They even went so far to point out that they didn't consider the Oilers in the 80s a dynasty (4 Cups in 5 years)
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 15, 2015 13:04:16 GMT -5
Agree letting Saku go was a mistake. But the loss of leadership and an understanding of the Bleu, Blanc, et Rouge occurred when Captain Carbo was traded - ironically because he was a union man (read: blue collar) like all his predecessors. We haven't won a cup since Carbo left. He understood the meaning of the Habs uniform and the cup which many have alluded to in this thread. Well, finally someone understands what the loss of Guy Carbonneau meant to our club ... that was the first of several emotionally-influenced moves that pretty much dismantled the '93 Cup team over a span of only two years ... we never recovered from that ... Kirk Muller took over and he was sent packing, too ... no offence to Jim Montgomery, but not only was he not Guy Carbonneau, but he really provided little to the club ... just a terrible move that started the downfall of a once-great franchise ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 15, 2015 13:36:51 GMT -5
[quote author=" Skilly" source="/post/472859/thread" timestamp="1431712073" I dont know how many on here would agree with this ... but I saw a program not long ago, and it was interviewing players about dynasties of the past. Once media guy and ex-player put forth that the definition of a dynasty is 3 consectuive Stanley Cups. They even went so far to point out that they didn't consider the Oilers in the 80s a dynasty (4 Cups in 5 years)[/quote] it's a new reality, Skilly . . . new definition . . . a dynasty is whatever you want to call it . . . and if you don't like the new definition you must be a Habs fan living in the past and holding on to what was. 6 teams, 12 teams, 22 teams, 30 teams . . . you still have to win and win often . . . and the other teams are always gunning for you. so you can be a good team, a very good team, a great team . . . or a dynasty. Chicago is very good. great? not so sure. dynasty? no way. there, my age is showing.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on May 15, 2015 14:30:47 GMT -5
If the Hawks win this year…it'll be 3 in 6 years.
Dynasty, new-age dynasty, 21st century dynasty….whatever….I'd take that.
I'd settle for perennial cup contender…which is where the Hawks basically are. But don't forget how they got Toews and Kane….
If Edmonton can build around their suckage as well as Chicago has…look for them to lead the way in a few years.
|
|