Know Your Enemy
Registered
Here's what a second Canadiens unit might look like
J.C. Tremblay-Tom Johnson
Ken Reardon-Butch Bouchard
Eric Desjardins-Sylvio Mantha
Terry Harper
You could also make a case for Jean-Guy Talbot
Last edited:
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
I'm not arguing he should be on Boston, so much as I think a player who spent four years with a team can't really call that team home. I wouldn't assign him to a team.
Plus, which seasons was he a left winger?
No doubt, players looked at Harvey as someone you had to prepare for, that there'd be no easy battles. But you still focussed on playing your own game, hoping it was good enough. It's like Lidstrom vs Stevens. If you're playing Lidstrom, you know there will be no easy goals, but, the mental focus is still on what will you do. Where as, when playing Stevens, if you have the puck and taking the zone, the first thought is going to be, "Keep your head up." Not, "Who's open?" or "Do I have a good scoring chance?"
And that proves?
Are you seriously going to argue that Chelios was better than Bourque? I find that laughable.
*sigh*
A quote from you:
"Chelios was never considered to be as good or better than Bourque at any point in his career"
A quote from me:
"Um...Chelios did win the Norris Trophy 3 times..."
Being that their careers did co-incide, can we now see the problem with the original quote?
Anyways, as for this argument in general: Career-wise, Bourque is the clear #4 IMO. He was dominant from start to finish, but not as dominant as Orr, Shore, and Harvey. As far as peak goes, you may be able to slide him to #5 or even #6 after guys like Potvin or Kelly. Either way, it's damn good.
Last edited:
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
Bourque was better offensively and more consistent on a year to year basis, but Chelios was tougher, a better hitter and better defensively. The Jennings Trophy seemed to follow Chelios around. Teams on which he was the #1 d-man were always in contention for the Jennings, as evidenced by his teams winning 6 and Bourque teams only winning one.
I would have Jean-Guy Talbot ahead of Desjardins and Terry Harper. Bob Turner and Ted Harris could arguably make that unit as well.
The Bruins second unit would have guys like Leo Boivin, Flash Hollet, Doug Mohns, Jack Crawford, Lionel Hitchman, Dallas Smith, and Don Sweeney.
Boston's starters are better, but Montreal has more depth.
Know Your Enemy
Registered
There are also guys like Ted Green, Pat Egan, George Owen, Glen Wesley and Carol Vadnais if you want to make up a 3rd unit.
I thought the exact opposite, Bourque could do more things at an A level. No slight on Potvin or Robinson, but, Bourque was always playing great defense and making it look like it was just another play. He always seemed to be in the right place at the right time, he just wasn't flashy about his defense. He was a very solid hitter, couldn't be knocked off the puck very easily, stayed on his feet when he was hit, and consistantly scored over 70 points a year.
He made his team defense better, great passer, he did it all at an A level. Potvin and Robinson had parts of their game that were at least on par with Bourque, but they didn't do it all as well as he did.
I think Harry Sinden said, if the Bruins were behind by a goal in the final minutes of a game he would want Orr out there, but if they were ahead by a goal, he would want Bourque out there.
BobbyAwe
Registered User
True. Orr and Bourque are in a class of their own. Park was good, maybe even great, but not on the same level.
BobbyAwe
Registered User
trenton1
Bergeron for Hart
Some people truly do not appreciate some of the inferior talent and downright crap Ray Bourque was saddled with as partners and on his unit from 1985-99. Excluding Gord Kluzak who played all of about 140 games in this period he was paired with such guys as Al Pederson, Paul Boutielier, Hal Gill, Don Sweeney, etc...
The Bruins defense unit as a whole during most years of his prime was embarassing compared to what a guy like Robinson had.
Bourque's trade to the powerhouse Avalanche and subsequent resurgence as a point producer for the Avalanche at age 39-40 showed how good and skilled this guy really was...even slowed way, WAY down.
If he was on a powerhouse team like that from 1985-95 or even had two other legit top 3 defenders around like Foote and Blake around at ANY time in that 10 year period, it's conceivable that no one else would have sniffed the Norris for those years and the Hart would have gone his way once no question (it should have in 1990, IMO).
Bourque played on a couple of very strong Bruins teams in his prime (1990 and 1991 specifically) but he NEVER had the supporting cast on his blueline that some folks think he did. He WAS the supporting cast and the lead player, which was pretty amazing to me.
The Bruins defense unit as a whole during most years of his prime was embarassing compared to what a guy like Robinson had.
Bourque's trade to the powerhouse Avalanche and subsequent resurgence as a point producer for the Avalanche at age 39-40 showed how good and skilled this guy really was...even slowed way, WAY down.
If he was on a powerhouse team like that from 1985-95 or even had two other legit top 3 defenders around like Foote and Blake around at ANY time in that 10 year period, it's conceivable that no one else would have sniffed the Norris for those years and the Hart would have gone his way once no question (it should have in 1990, IMO).
Bourque played on a couple of very strong Bruins teams in his prime (1990 and 1991 specifically) but he NEVER had the supporting cast on his blueline that some folks think he did. He WAS the supporting cast and the lead player, which was pretty amazing to me.
tinyzombies
Registered User
I always thought Bourque was considered better than Chelios.
Chelly won the Norris in Montreal next to an aging Robinson who played stay-at-home, but it took him until the mid-90s to really come into his own. He took a lot of dumb penalties up until then.
Bourque was a much more valuable player right from the start. He also had the wider body and could match anything Chelios could do. I'd have to give Bourque the nod.
As for Robinson. I think Big Larry took a lot of years off. He was the kind of guy who only played when it mattered. I guess all those Cups took a lot out of him. I would put Bourque ahead of Larry for consistency. And Larry turned the puck over in his own end later in his career, something Bourque never did.
Potvin is tougher. Because I always thought Potvin was like Bourque, but dirtier and rougher. I always thought Potvin had the nod. But injuries shortened Potvin's career while Bourque played a long, effective career. Right from the start, and right to the end. Very effective all the way through. Then again, if Bourque had won four straight Cups like Robinson and Potvin, it would have shortened his career too no doubt.
Chelly won the Norris in Montreal next to an aging Robinson who played stay-at-home, but it took him until the mid-90s to really come into his own. He took a lot of dumb penalties up until then.
Bourque was a much more valuable player right from the start. He also had the wider body and could match anything Chelios could do. I'd have to give Bourque the nod.
As for Robinson. I think Big Larry took a lot of years off. He was the kind of guy who only played when it mattered. I guess all those Cups took a lot out of him. I would put Bourque ahead of Larry for consistency. And Larry turned the puck over in his own end later in his career, something Bourque never did.
Potvin is tougher. Because I always thought Potvin was like Bourque, but dirtier and rougher. I always thought Potvin had the nod. But injuries shortened Potvin's career while Bourque played a long, effective career. Right from the start, and right to the end. Very effective all the way through. Then again, if Bourque had won four straight Cups like Robinson and Potvin, it would have shortened his career too no doubt.
Last edited:
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
It's all a matter of opinion. Really depends on what you value more in a d-man as to who you would rather have. No doubt I'd rather have a 32 year old or older Bourque over those guys at that age. But personally I'd rather have a 21-32 year old Robinson or Potvin over a 21-32 year old Bourque. Bourque definetly maintained great play over a longer period of time. Probably one of the best conditioned hockey players I've seen.
One things for sure, they were all great players.
One things for sure, they were all great players.
tinyzombies
Registered User
I would take Robinson too, if he came with Serge Savard riding shotgun.
Imagine how good Bourque would have been with someone of Savard's caliber riding shotgun?
mcphee
Registered User
I think we tend to forget that Bourque took time learning to play D in the nHL. He put up points from Day 1 but he didin;t step into th eleague that solid in his own end. He obviously became great in all aspects, but he had the learning curve that most do. Robinson declined late in his careeer and he'd always try the suicide pass, but I don't know that I'd say he took any years off though.
I love Chelios' game, but I couldn't rank him above Bourque.
Trenton makes a good point,but hey, Don Sweeney was ok.
Axxellien
Registered User
Bourque is better than Harvey, hes got him beat by 8 years on longevity. Just compare thier competition for the norris trophy, its not even close. Bourque competed against a far more talented crop. Bourque> Harvey anyday.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
Bourque, while one of my favorite players, just is not at Harvey's level. Harvey's peak was ridiculous. He was THE best defensive defenseman and Penalty killer ever to lace up the skates and was also the second best offensively at the same time(Red Kelly taking a slight lead there).
You want to compare their competition for the Norris trophy? Bourque's field was larger, while Harvey's had Red Kelly(Who was better than any of Bourque's top competition), followed by Gadsby, a guy who rightfully ranks ahead of many of Bourque's top competition. Gadsby is ahead of Macinnis, Leetch, Stevens, Langway, Howe, etc, while Kelly at his best was equal to or better than Potvin, Robinson, Chelios or Coffey. Had the Norris existed in 52-53, Harvey would have an 8th to add to his collection.
Harvey's competition was very stiff. Trying to imply he had easy competition is wrong.
Harvey was, in my opinion, the most important player on that Habs dynasty while he was there. He was certainly their best playoff performer. Bourque was no playoff slouch himself, but compared to Harvey? He just doesn't compare. Few players do.
Hockey Outsider did a graph regarding how much the Habs scoring went up or down during their cup winning years, and I was no surprise that Harvey's numbers jumped through the roof in those years.
Offensive Production: regular season PPG vs playoffs PPG on the 11 Stanley Cup winning teams
Minimum 250 RS games and 40 PO games
Doug Harvey | 0.56 | 0.82 | 46.4
J.C. Tremblay | 0.52 | 0.75 | 44.2
Bernie Geoffrion | 1.11 | 1.39 | 25.2
Dickie Moore | 1.03 | 1.16 | 12.6
Maurice Richard | 0.94 | 1.05 | 11.7
Yvan Cournoyer | 0.88 | 0.94 | 6.8
Jacques Lemaire | 0.86 | 0.91 | 5.8
Jacques Laperriere | 0.41 | 0.43 | 4.9
Jean Beliveau | 1.16 | 1.19 | 2.6
Terry Harper | 0.19 | 0.18 | -5.3
Ralph Backstrom | 0.6 | 0.54 | -10
Henri Richard | 0.83 | 0.74 | -10.8
Ted Harris | 0.28 | 0.24 | -14.3
Claude Provost | 0.62 | 0.51 | -17.7
John Ferguson | 0.56 | 0.46 | -17.9
Bobby Rousseau | 0.91 | 0.64 | -29.7
Tom Johnson | 0.35 | 0.24 | -31.4
Don Marshall | 0.4 | 0.27 | -32.5
Jean-Guy Talbot | 0.27 | 0.18 | -33.3
Claude Larose | 0.44 | 0.25 | -43.2
Bob Turner | 0.18 | 0.09 | -50
Bourque's longevity edge vs the Peak edge and playoff edge Harvey possesses does not close the gap in my opinion.
Axxellien
Registered User
Yes, All time, I'd say, Orr, Shore & Raymond Bourque!! Could have added Pat Stapleton had the Bruins kept him....
Steve Kournianos
@thedraftanalyst
Orr, Shore, Bourque.
It's hard to say which had more value -- Hart trophies in a 6-team league or Norris trophies in a 21-team league.
But I do know that 2 Cup rings trumps 0 cup rings (for the uniform), so in that respect I would place Bourque 3rd.
Bourque vs Lidstrom is another story. If you weigh Bourque's best period, statistically, postseason and two-way play, I would say 1987-1994. In that span he won 5 Norris Trophies, 7 1st team AS, 2 SCF appearances.
Lidstrom's best body of work is 2000-2008 (I thought he was marginal defensively in 2009 but was still a norris finalist and captained a SC finalist). Between 2000-2008, he won 6 Norris Trophies, 7 1st Team AS, 2 SC Championships and a very big Conn Smythe.
Now I will say that Bourque's individual accomplishments in his first 6 years in the league (1980-1985) outweigh Lidstrom's 1st five years in the league (1992-1997), while Lidstrom has had a much better career at the end than Bourque.
So how does Bourque rate higher than Lidstrom, aside from career points, which we all know is subjective because of the era's they played in.
It's hard to say which had more value -- Hart trophies in a 6-team league or Norris trophies in a 21-team league.
But I do know that 2 Cup rings trumps 0 cup rings (for the uniform), so in that respect I would place Bourque 3rd.
Bourque vs Lidstrom is another story. If you weigh Bourque's best period, statistically, postseason and two-way play, I would say 1987-1994. In that span he won 5 Norris Trophies, 7 1st team AS, 2 SCF appearances.
Lidstrom's best body of work is 2000-2008 (I thought he was marginal defensively in 2009 but was still a norris finalist and captained a SC finalist). Between 2000-2008, he won 6 Norris Trophies, 7 1st Team AS, 2 SC Championships and a very big Conn Smythe.
Now I will say that Bourque's individual accomplishments in his first 6 years in the league (1980-1985) outweigh Lidstrom's 1st five years in the league (1992-1997), while Lidstrom has had a much better career at the end than Bourque.
So how does Bourque rate higher than Lidstrom, aside from career points, which we all know is subjective because of the era's they played in.
Ad
Latest posts
-
Canucks News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | A True Playoff Team- Latest: sandwichbird2023
-
Devils team discussion (news, notes and speculation) - offseason part I- Latest: Stephen Gionta
-
-
