Top 100 Habs By Decade: 3. 1959-1969

In recognition of the Canadiens Centennial this Friday, we at Lions in Winter have been doing what we like best – making lists. As a precursor to publishing the definitive LIW top 100, we will be counting down the decades from least successful to most successful and naming our LIW top 10 players for the ten-year span.

Though this celebration has inevitably lost some steam due to relentless marketing and pre-game ceremonies for all of living memory, it would be a shame to let it pass unnoticed just because Mr. Gillett wanted to cash in before he cashed out.

1959-1969

The 1960s are consistently sold as the forgotten dynasty or the decade of the overlooked. But just like articles that pump up the same players time after time for being underrated, so too the 1960s – all the talk of being underrated sometimes risks making pundits overrate what happened in the 1960s.

While it is true that the Canadiens won 4 Stanley Cups in the 1960s proper and 5 Cups in the decade I have set from 1959-69, generally it is fair that this span of years should be relegated behind the incredible 1950s and unbelievable 1970s. Any other team would cite the Canadiens 1960s as their Golden Age. However, the 1960s were a bit of a changing of the guard and it showed for the early years.

The players selected for the 1960s were chosen either because they represented the 1960s well. In some cases, the 1960s was the core of their career, in others the beginning and some the twilight. Here they are.

[Note: Each player only appears in one decade's top 10 – so you may have to wait for the next update for your favourites]


10. John Ferguson (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1963-71	500	145	158	303	(+61)	(30)	AS
Decade best (Season)	1968-69	71	29	23	52	+30	7
Habs career (Playoffs)	1964-71	85	20	18	38		(4)	5 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1968-69	14	4	3	7		2	SC

The most feared man in the NHL during his time. His ability to play hockey as well made him supremely valuable to the dynasty of the 1960s.


9. Bobby Rousseau (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1960-70	643	200	322	522	(+42)	(32)	C, AS
Decade best (Season)	1965-66	70	30	48	78		4	AS
Habs career (Playoffs)	1962-69	78	16	29	45		(3)	4 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1964-65	13	5	8	13			SC

Talented scorer. Second in league scoring in 1965-66, while leading in assists.


8. Charlie Hodge (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	W	L	T	GAA	SO	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1954-67	237	115	72	40	2.46	21	V, AS
Decade best (Season)	1963-64	62	33	18	11	2.26	8	V, AS
Habs career (Playoffs)	1955-65	16	7	8	0	2.39	2	SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1964-65	5	3	2	0	2.00	1	SC

Lucky enough to have a good back-up, the Habs finally got to see what Hodge was worth (and it was Vezinas) after Plante was gone.


7. Dick Duff (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1964-70	305	87	85	172	(-12)	17	AS, HOF
Decade best (Season)	1967-68	66	25	21	46	+6	8
Habs career (Playoffs)	1965-69	60	16	26	42		(2)	4 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1968-69	14	6	8	14		1	SC

Brought in to replace Dickie Moore's scoring, Duff produced well. 1967-68 was his highlight for the Habs, where he shot 22.5% with 8 GWGs.


6. Rogatien Vachon (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	W	L	T	GAA	SO	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1966-72	206	110	56	30	2.65	13	V
Decade best (Season)	1967-68	39	23	13	2	2.48	4	V
Habs career (Playoffs)	1967-69	19	14	5	0	1.94	1	2 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1968-69	8	7	1	0	1.42	1	SC

His brief stint with the Canadiens was notable for its consistency and excellence in the playoffs. Only the arrival of Dryden kept him from more.


5. Ralph Backstrom (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1956-71	844	215	287	502	(+28)	(17)	C, AS
Decade best (Season)	1961-62	66	27	38	65			AS
Habs career (Playoffs)	1959-69	100	22	26	48		(3)	6 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1965-66	10	3	4	7			SC

The pan-dynastic talent is perhaps best remembered as the Candiens 3rd fiddle behind Beliveau and Richard. However, he had plenty of offensive talent himself and contributed much. One of the most interesting contributions he made to the Canadiens were his 27 points in 33 games to close out the season for the LA Kings in 1971, lifting them out of the cellar and granting the Candiens a first overall pick in the process.


4. Jean-Claude Tremblay (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1959-72	794	57	306	363	(+130)	(11)	AS
Decade best (Season)	1968-69	75	7	32	39	+29	1	AS
Habs career (Playoffs)	1961-72	108	14	51	65		(5)	5 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1965-66	10	2	9	11			SC

Slick skating, smart defenceman who QBed a successful PP for more than a decade.


3. Lorne "Gump" Worsley (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	W	L	T	GAA	SO	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1963-70	172	92	44	25	2.42	16	2 V, AS, HOF
Decade best (Season)	1967-68	40	19	9	8	1.98	6	V, AS
Habs career (Playoffs)	1965-69	39	29	7	0	1.91	4	4 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1967-68	12	11	0	0	1.88	1	SC

The vet brought in to man the fort after Plante's departure. He kept the young goalies honest and the fans of goalies satisfied with 2 Vezina trophies himself.


2. Jacques Laperriere (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	2001-06	691	40	242	282	(+241)	(5)	C, N, AS, HOF
Decade best (Season)	1965-66	57	6	25	31		2	N, AS
Habs career (Playoffs)	1963-73	88	9	22	31		(1)	5 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1967-68	13	1	3	4		0	SC

The intelligent, stay-at-home, big defender we all hope all of our current players could be.


1. Henri "Pocket Rocket" Richard (Top 100 all-time, Profile)

	Years(s)	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	GWG	Awards*
Habs career (Season)	1955-75	1256	358	688	1046	(+126)	(28)	BM, AS, HOF
Decade best (Season)	1962-63	67	23	50	73			AS
Habs career (Playoffs)	1956-75	180	49	80	129		(3)	11 SC
Decade best (Playoffs)	1959-60	8	3	9	12			SC

Always a bit lost in Canadiens lore. No player had more to overcome than he, with a small stature and a big shadow from his older brother. That he went on to become the winningest athlete in hockey and North American sports history is a feat. That he did it with modesty and grace is an all-too seldom mentioned accomplishment.



* Awards: N = Norris trophy; V = Vezina trophy; C = Calder trophy; BM= Bill Masterton; AS= All-star; SC = Stanley Cup.

The More Pretinent Question: Habs vs. Leafs

If you haven't read it already, it would be worth a trip over to Maclean's .

The argument presented – that the Toronto Maple Leafs are a victim of loyal and constant fan support and cash flow – is overly simplistic. It fits the need for those looking for an excuse, a way to hide from reality. In that way, it is not so different from calling the team unlucky. In fact, aren't they just unlucky to be based in Toronto? Can't everyone in Toronto say that?

Look, Toronto jokes aside, the Leafs are not unique in the sporting universe. There are countless teams in various sports that can rely on unremitting support and unending cash flow. The Boston Red Sox have benefited from support for years, yet they still figured out that the problem was in the team and its management, not some curse or cursed loyal fans. A little closer to home in the NHL, from Toronto you only need to look down the 401 to Montreal to see a team in the identical geographic monopoly situation. I remember the "lean" years from 1999-2001. Sure tickets were available, but most games were still televised and more than half of games were selling out.

So, doesn't that beg the question: "Why has Montreal been able to thrive in a hockey-mad market with near-unconditional support?"

The answer from the article (well done looking East for once), goes beyond simplistic to erroneous. The author states:

Over the same period, Montreal drafted eight future all-stars. Currently, 17 of the Habs' 25 players, including virtually all of its nucleus of young talent — Carey Price, Andrei Markov, Andrei Kostitsyn, Tomas Plekanec, Chris Higgins — were acquired through the draft.

This is due in part to the fact that the Habs have been subject to a healthy boom/bust cycle common to most teams. When the team falters, it uses high draft picks and a strong development system to rebuild.

Please allow me to deal with this first, and then I will move on to my take on Montreal's ability to succeed vs. Toronto.

The primary myth lies in the fact that the Habs have been through a boom/bust cycle over the past 20 years. In fact, 20 years the Canadiens were in the midst of a mini-dynastic period (call it the Patrick Roy era), which bolstered the remnants of the 1970s dynasty with Chelios and the class of a very good 1984 draft. The bust, propagated by bad trades and two very shoddy hirings (Houle and Tremblay) was not a true bust. Even with consecutive playoff misses, the best the Habs could muster was a 7th overall pick in 2001 (he's now Mike Komisarek). Funnily enough, the Leafs laid hands on a future 40-goal man (and dream Sundin wing-man) that year in Brad Boyes.

The writing off of Montreal's draft success as down to high picks is amateur analysis. What the Canadiens actually did, with a string of hirings from Andre Savard to Trevor Timmins to Bob Gainey (among others), was address the problems they had had with the draft over the previous decade. Someone with very good sense recognised the success that Ottawa was having in bringing up youngsters and went and poached 2 men key in building the Sens. The process continued this year – we hired the former lead Ottawa scout as recently as February.

If Toronto fans really believe that bust periods yield success, they should ask themselves why 10 consecutive top 10 picks from 1981-1990 did little more than provide trade bait for their GMs.


Reasons for Montreal's success since 1967 (juxtaposed with Toronto)


1) Anticipation

When I talk about anticipation, I am referring specifically to Montreal's keen maneuvering for the post-expansion era. Montreal and Sam Pollock in particular recognised the importance of draft picks before anyone else did. We all know about the Guy Lafleur coup. But, it was their 3rd first overall pick in 4 years after expansion. Not too shabby when you consider they also won the Cup in each of those years.

More recently, Bob Gainey has shown anticipation with his construction of a team to compete in the conditions of a changed NHL.

While Pollock was a genius, there was nothing stopping GMs from copying him. Toronto GMs were certainly slower to adapt to a system whereby players would all be picked from a pool, watching from the sidelines as their rivals from the 1960s left them in the dust.


2) Scouting

There have been a lot of clunkers for Montreal too, but in the early days of the draft, star players were identified with relative regularity. The 1993 team was mostly a homemade team as well, certainly there highly underrated back-end was. The 2008 editions is also draft-made, as noted.

Toronto scouts have not been the worst over this time, but they could hardly be called much more than average. Add to that, the Leafs penchant for trading away prospects that might have worked (Boyes, Rask) and draft picks, and it's hard to lay the blame on this crew. But, where Montreal overhauled the scouting department in the late 1990s, Toronto has yet to recognise the need for this in its own house.


3) Time for 10-goalscorers

I call this the Chad Kilger phenomenon. Montreal knew Chad Kilger was a stop-gap from the second game he played here. Toronto thought of him as a key piece to the puzzle. How anyone could sign Czerkawski after his debacle in Montreal is unbelievable. Toronto, the team that reveres 10-goal men, gave him a shot...

Montreal has been able to show greater ruthlessness to replaceable players in search for potential. Just recently, Bulis and Zednik were ejected. Toronto have been afraid to let go – perhaps tied to their poor scouting?


4) Personnel

The Canadiens seem to prefer "internal hires" to external ones. They have been able to draw on the success and know-how of various Cup winners over the years on their staffs. They can also rely on these employees understanding for the meaning of the CH to the players and the fans.

The Leafs seem to hire differently. Albeit, they don't exactly have a stellar cast upon which to draw execs, but even then some of their hires seem misplaced. Take the hiring of John Ferguson as a prime example – former assistant GM of the St. Louis Blues. Why not your own assistant GM? Why not someone who knew the Leafs? (Why not someone qualified?). Going into the summer, they are bound to repeat this mistake again as they scour the corners of the league for an experienced (read second-hand) GM.


5) Perspective

Call it perspective, call it judgment. Montreal GMs have been able to offer some perspective to fans: not every year will bring the Stanley Cup. In fact, they as much as told us they wouldn't be competing for the Cup for at least 5 years, oh about 5 years ago. Toronto has no such perspective.

Every summer, consecutive GMs have brought overblown optimism abetted by "big" signings. Most springs, they gave up a little of the future for that last piece. We can all see they are not one piece from being a contender. Somehow, the Leafs haven't been able to see that.


6) Luck

Call it luck, call it timing. Someone said you have to be good to be lucky.

When you look at our most successful seasons since the 1970s, there's been luck in play. Steve Smith scores in his own net to take Edmonton out. Glen Healy plays like a star for the first time in his career. 2 dynasties out of the way – 2 Cups. First ever open draft lottery: 5th overall pick – turn it into second best player in a deep draft.

Take Toronto's best chances: less luck. Not necessarily bad, just not as good. Where we get the Islanders in 1993, the Leafs managed to time playoff match-ups with Vancouver, Buffalo and Carolina during their isolated success. Compared to Carey Price, they managed only the 24th pick in the wide open 2005 draft.


7) Perception

Since 1993, the only difference between Montreal's success vs. Toronto's is perception. I could have written exactly this article in 2001 about the Canadiens, comparing them to the Leafs. At that time, our draft picks didn't look so hot, while Gary Roberts was an example of the perfect veteran free agent signing.

While the Leafs are perceived as a failure today – it is probably a somewhat unfair assessment. After all, this team is not Florida or Phoenix. They have much better plans for the future than say Atlanta. They will never wallow for as long as Columbus. Even when you look at their original 6 peers, they have fared much better than Chicago and even New York, in general. The Leafs are only one year removed from deflating Montreal in our bid to make the playoffs for consecutive years for the first time in a decade.


As long as Toronto measures themselves by Stanley Cups alone, they will never be able to break the cycle. I believe this, at the end of the day, is at the core of their failure. All their hirings are temporary moves. All their signings with next year in mind. Their attitude to prospects is coloured by the need for a Cup now,not in 11 years. More and more Leafs fans recognise this by the day. It's only a matter of time until the blow it all up and play the game the rest of the league does.

I rest easier knowing the best GM in the league and probably the best scouting staff are not going to be available to the Leafs though. Becuase that first step (our Andre Savard move) will be hard to make without an equivalent talent.

It's Not What the Leafs Do, It's How They Do It

As everyone knows, the Leafs have fired John Ferguson Jr. and hired Cliff Fletcher to replace him.

It reminded me why I dislike the Leafs and how they do things.

(NOTE: I judiciously use the term dislike here, since lately I have been indifferent about the Maple Leafs. Hate takes more emotional commitment than distaste, and so hate goes beyond what I am feeling at the moment.)

Back to the point. I'll be the first to admit that Habs fans are no angels and can be just as annoying as Leafs fans, but that's not what I am talking about. Let's face it, what fans do only matters to other fans (and if enough people agree on one idea (cheering or booing) then possibly the team for a few minutes during a game. What I am referring, when I talk about disliking the way the Leafs do things is the way people within the Maple Leafs organisation do all of the things I noted above.

Habs fans will know what I mean when I say I dislike the Leafs. It's the way they play, the way they "develop" players, the way they score goals, the way they defend, the players they go out and get, the way they react to losses, the way they react to wins, the way they treat people on the way out...

Their latest - the long, drawn-out, lay-off of John Ferguson Jr. was the antithesis of both forethought and class in a hockey club.


I respect that they had a need to fire JFJ after the Leafs poor first half has them looking at a third consecutive season on the golf course, but the way the whole thing was done made me realise what I dislike most about the Leafs – how they go about doing the things that all hockey clubs do.

When it comes to their former GM, it's worth remembering that they hired Ferguson Jr. as green as they come. That first season, from what I remember it took about 5 minutes of baying from the fans, and the poor guy was already setting about fighting for his job - something he never really got a break from until yesterday.

In my book, if you hire a rookie GM, you must as his employers at least, be prepared to stick out one or two tough seasons. Sure, they did that, but at no point was Ferguson ever left to learn without the unrelenting pressure of playoff money and fans demands following him around. Furthermore, if you say in the summer he is not qualified for the job, surely you put your money where your mouth is and find someone else before starting a torturous 5-month stay of execution for the poor guy.

Even as recently as Gainey's takeover, the Canadiens showed that they care about the way they do things. I thought they did some nice things for the outgoing GM. I'm not sure how Andre Savard took the news of demotion at the time or how he would speak about the Canadiens organisation now, but it must have been semi-acceptable as he stayed on a while in the new position of assistant GM to Bob Gainey. The Canadiens knew he was a good man with a future as a GM, but thought they could do better in the near future with a different man at the helm. As it was, they let him stay on until he found a new post of his own. From an outsider's perspective, things like that give off the appearance that Canadiens actually do care about such things.


Though my distaste rests primarily on the way they do things; admittedly, I am not entirely convinced by what they do either. As such, I can't resist putting down my thoughts on the hockey decisions they made yesterday.

Take the hiring of Cliff Fletcher. In my opinion, the move is a perfect mirror to what the Leafs have been doing for as long as I can remember – that is giving up on a younger candidate, bringing in veteran help (usually washed up) to remedy the situation short-term while they save the long-term plan for later. It is the same approach that a team who has the young talented centre they crave (Brad Boyes), but gives him up for the dream that is Owen Nolan. Then there's that Fletcher trade to get Wendel Clark back for the fans at the expense of the Roberto Luongo pick.

Young is good, but nothing beats NHL experience to get you one round of playoff revenue, eh? And, who can wait around for those youngsters to get experience on their own? That's 7 years without playoff home games for some stupid Cup...

Cliff Fletcher is Owen Nolan and he is Wendel Clark. He is both old and overrated by the fans in Toronto. Like the playoff rentals before him, his job security is short-term and will rely on how things turn out in the near future.

For a team that could benefit from a good long look in the mirror and a couple of hard years (Washington-style), the stop-gap that is Cliff Fletcher is a puzzle to me.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on what I think will be the most interesting hockey story of the week. If you want to get an experienced opinion from a thoughtful commentator, I suggest taking a look at Damien Cox's piece on the story in today's Toronto Star.