Yeah let's not get too wrapped up in technicalities, as when you present evidence such as the following from that 1978 Flames season, it appears that winning the game was based on winning the shots on goal battle every game, as goalies were egrigously pathetic.
Back then there wasn't the same level of parity throughout the league either, compared to now. So OT/SO or not maybe this streak is actually more impressive on some levels.
Another level where I think this streak compares favourably is the point of the season in which it occurs. The 78 Flames had theirs in October whereas the current streak is taking place right when the pressure ratchets up following the ASG.
In 1978 lots of things were different, that is why this winning streak will be footnoted by one of those small swords or another symbol of your choosing.
Based on my quick analysis here is a list of things that were different back then compared to today:
. players Mostly used wooden sticks
. A pinto was a fun car to drive
. You had to go to a store to buy porn
. There were no extreme type foods readily availible
. Guys in offices typed up reports on typewriters
. Smoking was allowed at your desk
. Mexican food was not yet mainstream
There are likely a few other things, but I can't think of any more now.
The flames are playing well right now and have made up a lot of ground, enjoy the ride
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
I'm going to argue counter to the initial dissertation, because I'm old and I was actually watching hockey back in the late 70's and early 80's. And then you young people will get off of my lawn and spread my wisdom.
Why is this current streak more impressive then the one by the Atlanta Flames
1) Talent - frankly there is no comparison of talent. Back in the late 70's expansion had taken a bite out of teams talent rosters. This happened because the full European influx hadn't happened. The Iron curtain was still up and we weren't seeing the flood of Russians, and various slovakians and even the European's weren't coming over in massive floods. Even USA hockey was kind of crappy and we American's were almost a rarity. Because of that most of the NHL players came from Canada and lineups were a lot weaker. The bottom pairing defensemen and the fourth lines were filled with barely able to lumber cement heads. Because of that you saw a lot more in the way of mismatches that coaches could take advantage of.
Today we are getting hockey players from all over the world. The emphasis has switched over to having actual hockey players throughout your lineup. You can't have a team that has a fourth line that sits on the bench until war breaks out. A fourth line and third line in terms of checking ability and pure physical skills have the capability of being matched up with top two lines and checking them into oblivion.
2) Coaching tactics - Back in the day your average shift was probably close to 2 minutes, because of that players towards the end of their shifts were pretty much worn out. Now if a shift goes longer then 45 seconds its either a player pulling a stupid move. Because of that the games have a higher level of compete and a higher level of speed and execution and there is more even play throughout the whole game.
In terms of coaching, I'm sorry but the coaches are just plain better nowdays. Now I'm not begrudging the Super Coaches of those days, but lets be honest, the education level of the coaches and coaching development is just plain better. While you get ex-players coaching today they are lavishly trained and not just thrown behind the benches like they were in the old days. We've seen what happens when you hope a coach learns on the job in the modern Era (Yeah I'm looking at you Wayne). You get a badly prepared coach who just plain looks bad. In the late 70's coaches were thrown behind the bench more for their names then their training
3) Goaltending - Not even close to todays era. Back in the day, you could have a one eyed goaltender with no depth perception as a starter (Garrett). Backup goalies were usually pretty horrible because again there just weren't that many good goalies to support a 21 league team as opposed to a decade earlier where there were 6 spots. Goalies were also puny and their equipment was tiny. They were told to stand up and hope the puck hit them. They were also usually the weirdo's of the team with the worst conditioning on the team. This was the slapshot era as well where goals were going in from everywhere on the ice. Nowdays it takes a miracle to score at times. And the goalies that we call garbage nowdays are far more evolved then the goalies from then.
4) Player conditioning and coaching - Not even close. The usual conditioning for players in the summer back then were some pushups, job three miles cut back during the season from a pack a day to a half pack a day. Preparation wasn't even close, they didn't have much in the way of video sessions for preparation, their pregame meal was a thick steak and a beer. Now from top to bottom the players are physical machines lavishly coached and conditioned . On off days back in the late 70's players were more then likely to have McDonald's for breakfast, A bar and grill for lunch and a half dozen beers and for dinner, a couple of asprin and a steak with fries.
5) The lack of OT, sure it didn't exist back there so you had the possibility of a tie. However now you have OT so there has to be a winner or loser and losing in OT in 3 on 3 gimmick matches I believe are easier to lose. Its harder for a bad team in the late 70's to tie against a superior opponent then for a bad team to get possession in OT and score.
Lets face it, in the modern era( you know this one) the teams are better, deeper, better coached and better conditioned. Its easier to lose an OT game then to tie a regulation game that's why you see teams having 12 or 13 ties at max. Also teams tend to try to force OT in the modern era because of the easier way of winning in OT or a shootout. Also lets face it, more goalies back then were horrific in nature and it didn't matter if they were screened on a slapshot from the point or not, they didn't have a chance.
This streak is impressive because its happened in a more evolved NHL.
Thus endeth the lesson.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Last edited by CaptainCrunch; 03-12-2017 at 11:38 AM.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Interesting to note that the Atlanta Flames 10 game win streak was capped with a shutout win against, none other than, the Pittsburgh Penguins.
So the streak ended with back to back shutouts and the last one was against the Penguins. It only took 30 years but the Penguins have been planning revenge since then.
Even if we 'match' or 'surpass' the 1978 Atlanta Flames 10 game winning streak on Monday, it may not be the landmark people are making out.
Back when Atlanta did it, there were no OT or SO wins. After 60 minutes if you were level, the game was a tie and the winning streak was over. This was also the case for the 88-89 Calgary Flames.
If we still had the same points system, the current streak would be 3 games. But that said, because the point system is the way it is, team will naturally approach games differently. For instance I've heard it said if all games were made 3 pointers, we may see more games settled in 60 minutes as there would be a greater incentive if teams got 3 for a regulation win and 2 for an OT or SO win.
So, aside from the fantastic surprise of this run and how it has contributed towards the likelihood of a playoff campaign, how do others measure this streak against past franchise marks?
Interesting to note that the Atlanta Flames win streak in 1978 was at the start of the season (many teams not likely at their best yet), vs the current Flames win streak in late Feb and March when most teams are competing for playoff aspirations.
The Following User Says Thank You to Gaudfather For This Useful Post:
Back in the day, you could have a one eyed goaltender with no depth perception as a starter (Garrett).
Begging your pardon, but what's this all about? NHL players have been required to have sight in both eyes ever since the Trushinski bylaw was passed in the 1920s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
This streak is impressive because its happened in a more evolved NHL.
Not sure I agree with this either. It's not as if the Flames are taking a team of 1970s players and throwing them out against the best the modern NHL has to offer. Every player has the same advantages now. Every player had the same disadvantages back then.
However, there is one respect in which I'll tip my hat to the Atlanta Flames: They didn't get fleeced by Sam Pollock. Back then, if a team won 10 in a row, you expected it to be an Original Six club (probably Montreal) or possibly the Flyers. Expansion teams had a nasty habit of trading away their top draft picks just to get enough journeyman NHLers to limp through the season. Cliff Fletcher was too smart for that, and his team's owners let him do his job. If he'd traded three first-round picks to the Habs for a roll of stick tape and a one-legged hobo (I'm looking at you, California Golden Seals), his team would never have had the horses to win 10 in a row.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Last edited by Jay Random; 03-12-2017 at 12:46 PM.
Begging your pardon, but what's this all about? NHL players have been required to have sight in both eyes ever since the Trushinski bylaw was passed in the 1920s.
What the....
Looked it up....can confirm...
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
Begging your pardon, but what's this all about? NHL players have been required to have sight in both eyes ever since the Trushinski bylaw was passed in the 1920s.
The rule is apparently that a player must have at least 20/400 vision in both eyes -- which is barely functional sight. Learned this on the Bryan Berard Wikipedia page. He had a special contact lens to make his vision 20/400 after the Hossa incident. His vision in that eye without the contact lens was 20/600.
In fact, a winning streak in the salary cap era might be more impressive than one in the pre-cap era.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
