We're Number 4! We're Number 4! 1974-75 Flyers Ranked As Fourth Most-Hated Sports Team

by Travis Hughes on Jul 28, 2010 12:52 PM EDT

Sports Illustrated sent this over to us this morning, and typically we just throw stuff like this in the Fly By, but there's nothing else to talk about. So here's a post about how the 1974-75 Flyers are the fourth most hated sports team in history.

From SI:

The Broad Street Bullies were the first hockey team to use intimidation as a tactic. Urged by coach Fred Shero to "take the shortest route to the puck carrier and arrive in ill humor," rugged enforcers like Dave (The Hammer) Schultz (pictured), Bob (Hound) Kelly, Don (Big Bird) Saleski and Andre (Moose) Dupont racked up penalty minutes in record quantities while clearing the way for skill players like Reggie Leach, Bill Barber and three-time NHL MVP Bobby Clarke. They were nicknamed by Jack Chevalier and Pete Cafone of the Philadelphia Bulletin, who wrote in 1973 that "the image of the fightin' Flyers is spreading gradually around the NHL, and people are dreaming up wild nicknames. They're the Mean Machine, the Bullies of Broad Street and Freddy's Philistines." The Flyers captured back-to-back Stanley Cups in 1974 and '75 and remained one of the league's biggest road draws for years to come, but many traditionalists contend their legacy was corruptive on hockey. "They brawled their way to the Cup," longtime Toronto Star writer Frank Orr recalled in HBO's documentary about the team. "To the purists, they represented everything evil about the game. They were a disgrace."

Which teams beat the Flyers, you might ask? At number one, the 1986 U of Miami football team. Number two, the 88-89 Detroit Pistons, number three, the 1992 Dallas Cowboys. There's only one other hockey team on the list, and that's the 2000-01 Toronto Maple Leafs.

Poll

Do you take pride in SI's ranking of the 74/75 Flyers as the fourth-most-hated sports team of all time?

Yes, I love when we're villified

336 votes

I don't care what other people think about the Flyers

168 votes

No, I want the hockey world to love us

8 votes

512 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I love that we’re vilified by Canadian hockey writers, because they are hilariously sour assholes. Otherwise, I don’t care.

by Snevik on Jul 28, 2010 12:55 PM EDT reply actions

If Toronto had thought of it first and won consecutive cups, they’d think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.

by doubleh on Jul 28, 2010 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions

Seriously, “F” that Orr guy.

Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.

by doubleh on Jul 28, 2010 12:55 PM EDT reply actions

Someone give the Hammer a call. I think someone needs their ass kicked…

Flyers fan since 1983. I missed the good stuff.

by Sakurafire on Jul 28, 2010 12:56 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

a few points

1) if the flyers’ style of play was so reviled, why did other teams follow their lead?

2) i didn’t hear anyone complaining when the flyers of that era curb stomped those russians.

Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance

by psudrozz on Jul 28, 2010 1:01 PM EDT reply actions

“curb stomped those russian bastards”.

fixed.

Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance

by psudrozz on Jul 28, 2010 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Haters gotta hate

Look at the Kovy contract. Everyone hates it. However if the Devils get away with it, a lot of other teams will push the envelope further and fans will love it if they get a great deal on a player.

bread. butter. cheese. VICTORY!

by Prometheus74 on Jul 28, 2010 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions

i love this article about the 86 canse team:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=fiesta87

and yes, as my name sugests i am biased.

Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance

by psudrozz on Jul 28, 2010 1:02 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

You have that bookmarked too?

It’s one of my favorite articles :D

by Kyle_Martin on Jul 28, 2010 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions

indeed.

Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance

by psudrozz on Jul 28, 2010 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Thank you for posting that – you made another Penn Stater very happy. :)

#1 Flyers fan in England (originally from Southeastern PA)

by Orange and Black Forever on Jul 28, 2010 7:08 PM EDT up reply actions

no problem

/clicks on cited story
/smiles

Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance

by psudrozz on Jul 29, 2010 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions

The same for me about 24 hours ago. :)

One of the single greatest games ever in terms of satisfaction I have ever witnessed. :)

#1 Flyers fan in England (originally from Southeastern PA)

by Orange and Black Forever on Jul 29, 2010 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Blues

Actually, the Flyers were not the first team to use intimidation as a tactic. The St. Louis Blues did it first. The Flyers just took it to another level and perfected the style.

I wish people would do their research occasionally.

Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.

by doubleh on Jul 28, 2010 1:03 PM EDT reply actions

Is this based on anything except Ed Snider’s quotes and the Flyers retrospective videos? That’s where I got that impression from, I just wasn’t sure.

by Snevik on Jul 28, 2010 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Well, it is true that Claude LaForge never played again after being cheapshot by Noel Picard.

Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog

by Ben Feldman on Jul 28, 2010 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, but that was that indicative of the team? Of Picard’s play in general? Was that at all similar to the model that the Flyers used as BSB?

That sounds like a direct quote from the 25th anniversary VHS tape that I watched a thousand times as a child. That’s where I get my sense of Fyers history from, too, but it’s by no means definitive.

by Snevik on Jul 28, 2010 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Research? Too hard.

Much easier to re-hash stories based on inaccurate information. Or as it is known today, “journalism”.

by Phalange on Jul 28, 2010 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions

No quotes from Mr. Van Impe? The man has some great one-liners.

Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog

by Ben Feldman on Jul 28, 2010 1:09 PM EDT reply actions

His face ran into my Elbow…. Happy?

Formerly... "You don't have to be sweet, to be good"

by Ed Van Chimp on Jul 28, 2010 10:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes. Much better.

Contributor at The Brotherly Game, SBN's Philadelphia Union blog

by Ben Feldman on Jul 28, 2010 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Love them, hate them, they're the guys with the Cup

If it’s brutal, but it works, it still works.

Honor is no substitute for victory.

by The Dark on Jul 28, 2010 1:10 PM EDT reply actions

Normally I would go with the first choice. But it does seem in the 21 centrury that only americas’ popular teams win in the end. Only a few have broken this mold so I am the one vote for the hockey world to love us. I think then the refs will start to be more fair to us.

I wasn't even a year old but I stayed up to be outside the Vet with my Dad and Mom when the Phillies won the World Series 1980.

by Christopher A on Jul 28, 2010 1:29 PM EDT reply actions

A fair point, but....

… I’d rather be the mold-breaking villain.

One thing that I think gets left out a lot is that when the Bullies won the Cup, they accomplished TWO things that had never been done before.

1. An expansion team beat an Original Six.
2. An expansion team won the Cup.

Think about what this means: It was one half of the proof that the expansion was a success. The other half was that the Flyers mere presence, as I understand from things I read, put asses in seats at that point. The Flyers Cup game has ONE game in the history of the NHL more watched, which was our recent staggering loss to Chicago. We’re the top two most watched games in NHL history.

Philly helped to prove the expansion worked, and to make the league what it is today. Did we do it alone? Hell no, I don’t mean that at all. But the other teams that got things going generally seemed to be cleaner cut. We bruised our way in to show the growing league had a fire in it.

The doubters and the hate-filled jerks can go piss in the wind.

by VorAbaddon on Jul 28, 2010 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions

I am not surprised to find us on this list.

The reasons stated were dumb and I agree with doubleh that if Toronto thought of our style of play that Orr would think differently.

I think that we are villified, but not in the league of those other teams. I never knew the stories of some of those, but man we shouldn’t be lumped with those. What we did was playing hockey the way it should be, we weren’t thugs, we had skill and knocked anybody in our way down. And the fact that a lot of teams took after that mentality, and we were not a disgrace to the sport.

#1 Flyers Fan in New York

Good bye #12, you will truly be missed.

by Lindbergh 31 on Jul 28, 2010 1:51 PM EDT reply actions

But if you were from Toronto, or Montreal, or another city, you might view it the other way. They were a team that won, that were frustrating/tough to play against, and were easily hate-able for those two reasons. If they were just bullies and didn’t win, this wouldn’t even be an issue, it’s an issue b/c they won. It’s a matter of perspective and a result of their success, which is why I don’t care how anyone else views this team, past, present or future.

Is this the right room for an argument?

by DLJr on Jul 28, 2010 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Sorry the Flyers were not the first team to intimidate in the NHL. The Bruins were the first, followed by the St Louis Blues. It was only after being dominated that Philly followed suit. Now if it said the “first team to win a championship by intimidation” then it would be closer to correct.

This happens all the time in physical sports. The Oakland Raiders and Steelers of the 70s and the Ravens of 2000 all used intimidation to win. You don’t think that nobody in the NHL intimidates now? Intimidation does not have to be physical. Just look at how “scared” Ryan Parent was when Sidney Crosby was on the ice.

Get over it folks. The Bullies of the 70s did not win through intimidation, they won because they were a great team that had stars (Clarke, Barber, Parent, Leach, and MacCleish) that were all in their prime and dominated the sport. Shultz was a part of the team, but the stars were the dominant forces.

Phigment

by Phigment on Jul 28, 2010 2:48 PM EDT reply actions

They also had twice as many penalty minutes as the second most penalized team. Schultz had more penalty minutes than some whole teams. You really can’t discount how big a factor that was.

And as for the stars… Clarke was the dirtiest guy on the ice.

They lay it out pretty well in the HBO documentary.

Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook

by JasonB on Jul 29, 2010 1:44 AM EDT up reply actions

Yes it’s a source of some pride, it gave philly an idenity, unfortunately it seems like we still pay for it some times., I know sometimes when I’m watching philly, no matter how talented they are, when they are losing, I long for the days when we could just beat the crap out of the other guys, and win some CUPS, This bridesmaid dance is getting trying.

by philly willi on Jul 28, 2010 8:11 PM EDT reply actions