no flyers dman in the top 25 of nhl networks top 25 list....say it aint so.

so you're saying Lindros should have swung his stick around like a weapon and depended on goons to protect him?
- 2Real

88 was always a target and wasnt going to get any protection from the refs. That being said i think they did a piss poor job protecting their asset. That was on Clarke

Dont care about the repercussions when anyone went after 88 they should have been put down. Certain players should have had one job. They didnt make others teams pay for when they took shots at 88. so yes he should have had goons "protect" him

the way they call the game today he would dominate like no other.

no flyers dman in the top 25 of nhl networks top 25 list....say it aint so.
- daryl stanley

I mean none of them played like one last year...

He wouldn't have to...

1) He would not skate with his head down.
2) He played in the era where players were taught to defensively raise their stick, giving the would be hitter the choice of veering off or skating right into the lumber.
3) Alternatively, there is good chance that Clarke would have proactively two-handed or speared Stevens.
4) If Stevens did succeed in hitting Clarke high, there would have been a beeline for Stevens by every Flyer on the ice and the rest leaping over the bench. Ask Barry Cummins how bloodying Clarke worked for him.
- bmeltzer

The best response by Mr. Meltzer in the history of his blog.

So Clarke benefitted from goon hockey the big E didn’t not have to worry about that as much
- 2Real

The goon era? Or when players actually had to be accountable for their actions?

Just my opinion but ...

Back then if you ran someone they didn’t swing but they definitely had their stick up to protect themselves and they should.

Love Lindros but he invented head down
- wcorvette

He was always bigger, faster and stronger then his opponents until he got to the NHL...then he couldn’t just skate through guys....he always had a bad habit of skating with his head down through juniors....it caught up with him in the NHL. Such wasted potential....could really have been one of the all time greats.

I mean none of them played like one last year...
- hereticpride

Couldn’t agree more.

88 was always a target and wasnt going to get any protection from the refs. That being said i think they did a piss poor job protecting their asset. That was on Clarke

Dont care about the repercussions when anyone went after 88 they should have been put down. Certain players should have had one job. They didnt make others teams pay for when they took shots at 88. so yes he should have had goons "protect" him

the way they call the game today he would dominate like no other.
- daryl stanley

Hate to say this, but 88 would have gotten caught skating with his head down in any era. If it wasn't Scott Stevens destroying him, it would have been somebody else.

Clarke might not have been a physical beast, but he was smarter than 88, commanded more respect, and would do anything to win. If I'm building a team from scratch, and I could only pick one of them, it would be Bobby Clarke all day long.

Lindros is the best flyers player ever
- 2Real

Yeah as much I loved watching Lindros I can't agree with this when you have Clarke in the org.

Yeah as much I loved watching Lindros I can't agree with this when you have Clarke in the org.
- opeth_pa

While I began watching in 71-72 season and love Bobby Clarke and Bernie Parent, my personal bias leans towards Mark Howe as the possibly the best player to wear the orange and black. His play from 82-83 through 87-88 was incredible. He anchored those teams and, IMO, was robbed of two Norris trophies. Through my Flyers colored glasses, he seemed to play almost flawless hockey.
While I know many people on this site pooh-pooh +/-, I believe that, for a full-time player who plays pretty much a full season, +/- relative to the team is a pretty important statistic. In the 85-86 season (these numbers may be off slightly), I believe he was +87 while the team as a whole was +74. That means when he wasn't on the ice, the team was -13. To put that into an isolated perspective, when Orr set the +/- record of +124, the Bruins as a team were +165 or +41 when Orr wasn't on the ice. While I am not entirely sure what that means, my instinct tells me that the 85-86 Howe may have been more valuable to his team than the 70-71 Orr.

I bet you Lindros would destroy Wayne Gretzky one on one also.
- MJL

When did Gretzky enter the debate. You lose as usual mjl

While I began watching in 71-72 season and love Bobby Clarke and Bernie Parent, my personal bias leans towards Mark Howe as the possibly the best player to wear the orange and black. His play from 82-83 through 87-88 was incredible. He anchored those teams and, IMO, was robbed of two Norris trophies. Through my Flyers colored glasses, he seemed to play almost flawless hockey.
While I know many people on this site pooh-pooh +/-, I believe that, for a full-time player who plays pretty much a full season, +/- relative to the team is a pretty important statistic. In the 85-86 season (these numbers may be off slightly), I believe he was +87 while the team as a whole was +74. That means when he wasn't on the ice, the team was -13. To put that into an isolated perspective, when Orr set the +/- record of +124, the Bruins as a team were +165 or +41 when Orr wasn't on the ice. While I am not entirely sure what that means, my instinct tells me that the 85-86 Howe may have been more valuable to his team than the 70-71 Orr.
- GeorgeBailey

Bullpoop baffles brains George and you sir are totally dillusional. Orr is the greatest ever and more blog is total bs.

88 was always a target and wasnt going to get any protection from the refs. That being said i think they did a piss poor job protecting their asset. That was on Clarke

Dont care about the repercussions when anyone went after 88 they should have been put down. Certain players should have had one job. They didnt make others teams pay for when they took shots at 88. so yes he should have had goons "protect" him

the way they call the game today he would dominate like no other.
- daryl stanley

Well said, Bobby Clarke had about six enforcers on his side ready to do battle including the best ever in Dave Schulz. Not saying Clarke was not special but Lindros was every bit as good or better. The game changed lots by the time Lindros arrived on the scene. My fav game all time was the FLyers destroying the Russians

[quote=GeorgeBailey]"Here I am dressed up in my Flyers jersey at a Flyers game in Vancouver, obviously a big Flyer fan. Clarke was standing by himself and I approached him politely and he just walked away pissed that a fan would talk to him ?? Never liked him since, great player and lousy GM"


George, eat poop

Lindros is the best flyers player ever
- 2Real

Right on mate

He wouldn't have to...

1) He would not skate with his head down.
2) He played in the era where players were taught to defensively raise their stick, giving the would be hitter the choice of veering off or skating right into the lumber.
3) Alternatively, there is good chance that Clarke would have proactively two-handed or speared Stevens.
4) If Stevens did succeed in hitting Clarke high, there would have been a beeline for Stevens by every Flyer on the ice and the rest leaping over the bench. Ask Barry Cummins how bloodying Clarke worked for him.
- bmeltzer

The only valid point is number 4 Bill, Lindros did not have a Schultz type x 10 ready to help him out. Hell, even my weak buddy Kindrachuk thrived on this team of goons. Off topic but that is why I despised Hextall, he killed the Flyers hockey and made them soft. Fact is Scott Stevens would have destroyed Clarke just like anyone else who got in his way. Clarke was tough and heart of a lion but really do you think he could stand up to Scott Stevens, give you head a shake.

https://goldensealshockey.com/?page_id=1937
- MJL

The whole part about Mike Christie could be about Brandon Manning.

The goon era? Or when players actually had to be accountable for their actions?
- landros 2

Also, when Lindros played, the automatic 10-game suspension for the first player off the bench was enacted, so I'm not sure who the Flyers wanted to lose for the next 7 (potential SCF) games in addition to Lindros. In Clarke's day, you could have the entire team come onto the ice and get nothing more than majors/misconducts. If that happened today, half the team would be suspended.

I hate Stevens for it, but that is mostly Lindros' fault for having his head down across the middle. He's my favorite player of all time, but it's on him.

I hate Stevens for it, but that is mostly Lindros' fault for having his head down across the middle. He's my favorite player of all time, but it's on him.
- jmatchett383

Maybe a smidgen on Lindros. Stevens delivered that hit, as well as the one to Kariya, with the intent of separating his opponent's head from his body. In other words, with the intent to injure. Both players had already dished off the puck and Stevens' shoulder/elbow did not drive through their faces by accident or as a natural continuance of the play. In both cases, Steven's should have gotten a match penalty under the existing rules at the time. At least I think so.

The only valid point is number 4 Bill, Lindros did not have a Schultz type x 10 ready to help him out. Hell, even my weak buddy Kindrachuk thrived on this team of goons. Off topic but that is why I despised Hextall, he killed the Flyers hockey and made them soft. Fact is Scott Stevens would have destroyed Clarke just like anyone else who got in his way. Clarke was tough and heart of a lion but really do you think he could stand up to Scott Stevens, give you head a shake.
- joegreif17

Scott Stevens wasn’t some mythical dman. He took advantage of a bad habit Lindros had. Skating with the puck with his head down.
Truth be told Lindros beat the crap out of Stevens a couple times when Stevens had the balls to drop the gloves.

If you put both Lindros and Clarke in today’s game you have to account for all the changes. The obvious is the hits like Stevens don’t exists any longer. The other part is The Clarke time period was the 70’s, how players took care of themselves was way different, how they trained prior to the NHL was way different. If you compare the lindros time to now, it is different, to a lesser degree but different.

With how competitive Clarke was, do I think he would have been really good today? Yes I do. Do I think Lindros would have been? Yes but not as much, he was already closed to todays standards.

With all that said, in today’s game, taking in to consideration Clarke’s and Lindros’s who would be the better player? I think Lindros would be more dominant but I still would take Clarke as the captain all day long.

When did Gretzky enter the debate. You lose as usual mjl
- joegreif17

Yea, you missed the point by a mile!

Maybe a smidgen on Lindros. Stevens delivered that hit, as well as the one to Kariya, with the intent of separating his opponent's head from his body. In other words, with the intent to injure. Both players had already dished off the puck and Stevens' shoulder/elbow did not drive through their faces by accident or as a natural continuance of the play. In both cases, Steven's should have gotten a match penalty under the existing rules at the time. At least I think so.
- GeorgeBailey

His elbow and shoulder were down on the Lindros hit. Contact to the head was legal as long as the check was legal, which it was.

Hate to say this, but 88 would have gotten caught skating with his head down in any era. If it wasn't Scott Stevens destroying him, it would have been somebody else.

Clarke might not have been a physical beast, but he was smarter than 88, commanded more respect, and would do anything to win. If I'm building a team from scratch, and I could only pick one of them, it would be Bobby Clarke all day long.
- Tomahawk

I will point out that the Stevens hit would have been suspendable in todays game. As would most of the hits that gave Lindros concussions.

So maybe not.

Yea, you missed the point by a mile!
- MJL

He sure did.....LOL