Em Blog Frozen

4 Comments

1. Junior wrote:

   Isn’t this because basically ever since Gretzky entered the league sporting a 99, every “star” player has had to essentially create their own mystique around their own “unique” number? Jagr’s ‘68 (a tribute to the Prague spring), Dougie Gilmour’s 93, Lindros’ 88, Coffey’s 77, etc., etc. No doubt there have been other star players with more conventional numbers, but my point is that there is a very real sense out there now that stars have to create their own identity rather than accepting the “star” numbers of the past - 7 or 9 among forwards, 1 among goalies.

   It’s a bit of a shame, really. I for one never got all jazzed up about Sergei Fedorov’s 91 or Bryan Fogarty’s 43.

   And yes, I know, there were some guys in the league wearing unconventional numbers before Gretzky, but it’s unlikely that Wilf Paiement’s 99 had any kind of an effect on anyone.

   Saturday, July 7, 2007 at 12:48 pm | Permalink
2. odessasteps wrote:

   Did Coffey wear 77 before Bourque?

   Saturday, July 7, 2007 at 7:17 pm | Permalink
3. Junior wrote:

   odessasteps: Good question.

   According to wikipedia, Coffey switched to #77 when he joined Philadelphia in ‘96-’97. That would have been several years after Bourque started wearing #77 (because Esposito’s jersey number was retired by the Bruins) in 1987.

   Thus, if Wikipedia can be trusted, you are correct - Ray was first.

   Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 3:38 pm | Permalink
4. Junior wrote:

   Oops - immediately after hitting “post”, it occurred to me that Coffey had for sure worn 77 while playing for the Penguins. According to http://www.azhockey.com, he did - also commencing in 1987. Here’s where it gets tricky - Coffey presumably began wearing his 77 at the beginning of that season, whereas Bourque didn’t switch until December of ‘87 when Espo’s jersey was mothballed. Hence, it would seem that Coffey was first, but just barely.

   Anyway, it would seem (again according to azhockey.com) that Garry Unger beat them both.

   Who knew Wikipedia could be wrong?

   Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment