Erik Karlsson, Victor Hedman, Nicklas Lidström after 10 seasons

[Voight]

You don’t think EK will win another Norris? that’s bold.

To be fair he is approaching 30 and on the same team as another Norris contender, so votes will split between the two.

 

[Patty Ice]

To be fair he is approaching 30 and on the same team as another Norris contender, so votes will split between the two.

That's a very fair point. As well as both, being in a non traditional market though that hasn't been a big factor in recent years. it is still a factor.

 

[Voight]

LOL, You just randomly came up with him being number 3, without having a number 2?

I would actually have him 2, ahead of Bourque.

Just curious, whats the reasoning behind this?

Bourque was in the Norris conversation ever single season he played and finished top 5 in voting in all but three seasons (finished 7th all 3 times).

Even his last season he finished 2nd behind Lidstrom, who was 10 years younger.

Sure Lidas has 2 more Norris trophies but they also faced different competition.

 

[Artorius Horus T]

Is this thread's purpose to paint a pretty picture where Karlsson and Hedman are at par with Lidström????.
Or that Karlsson is supposedly superior to Lidström?. Lidström >>>>> Karlsson,Hedman. 10 seasons, career, no matter what.

Niclas Lidström is legendary. One of the best d-men ever played this sport, period.

It took Hedman for 5 years to become a true 1st pair d-man in the NHL and another 2 to for star level.
Although Hedman is the way better of the two Karlsson&Hedman, even he isn't one of the best (top 5) d-men in the NHL at the moment.

Erik Karlsson in my mind is one of the most overrated d-men in the NHL, he still hasn't learned how to play defense,
not in the serious matter of the word and when ever he looses his offensive touch, he becomes useless.
- its mind boggling that he has already won 2 Norris Trophies due to his offensive abilities

 

[DFC]

Just curious, whats the reasoning behind this?

Bourque was in the Norris conversation ever single season he played and finished top 5 in voting in all but three seasons (finished 7th all 3 times).

Even his last season he finished 2nd behind Lidstrom, who was 10 years younger.

Sure Lidas has 2 more Norris trophies but they also faced different competition.

I'm a huge Lidstrom guy, but I agree with this. I never really saw Bourque in his prime, but he was good enough post-prime to leave an impression. My sense is, even while Lidstrom was the more "flawless" defenseman, Bourque's strengths were so disproportionately huge that he's likely deserving of the #2 spot. And that's something that's hard to say for me, as a guy who watched Lidstrom very closely, for a long time, and then went back and rewatched as much as I could.

Forget about defensemen though. Both of these guys (Bourque, Lidstrom) could easily be in the top 20 or so players ever. I think Karlsson is amazing, but he doesn't really belong in that conversation, and Hedman is a notch or so below that again.

 

[BlueMed]

Karlsson does not belong in the same sentence as Hedman on Lidstrom because Karlsson is terrible defensively. Gets beat so many times. Poor positioning. Makes terrible decisions with the puck. Cannot play the body at all. Takes too many risks. Basically just a 4th forward on the ice.

All of that applies to Burns as well.

 

[Voight]

I'm a huge Lidstrom guy, but I agree with this. I never really saw Bourque in his prime, but he was good enough post-prime to leave an impression. My sense is, even while Lidstrom was the more "flawless" defenseman, Bourque's strengths were so disproportionately huge that he's likely deserving of the #2 spot. And that's something that's hard to say for me, as a guy who watched Lidstrom very closely, for a long time, and then went back and rewatched as much as I could.

Forget about defensemen though. Both of these guys (Bourque, Lidstrom) could easily be in the top 20 or so players ever. I think Karlsson is amazing, but he doesn't really belong in that conversation, and Hedman is a notch or so below that again.

Agree, plus for me a big thing is that even in his last season at 40 Bourque still managed to finish 2nd in Norris voting. Nevermind all those years he carried Boston, including 2 finals runs.

 

[NoMessi]

Is this thread's purpose to paint a pretty picture where Karlsson and Hedman are at par with Lidström????.
Or that Karlsson is supposedly superior to Lidström?. Lidström >>>>> Karlsson,Hedman. 10 seasons, career, no matter what.

Niclas Lidström is legendary. One of the best d-men ever played this sport, period.

It took Hedman for 5 years to become a true 1st pair d-man in the NHL and another 2 to for star level.
Although Hedman is the way better of the two Karlsson&Hedman, even he isn't one of the best (top 5) d-men in the NHL at the moment.

Erik Karlsson in my mind is one of the most overrated d-men in the NHL, he still hasn't learned how to play defense,
not in the serious matter of the word and when ever he looses his offensive touch, he becomes useless.
- its mind boggling that he has already won 2 Norris Trophies due to his offensive abilities

Like wtf. Who are the 5 other guys that are better than Hedman? I mean, at the very least he is top 3 - with the pole position for number 1 in my opinion.

Edit: Agree that Lidstrom is eons ahead of either Karlsson and Hedman though.

 

[alko]

I havent read this thread but let me guess:

All three swedes are overrated and another defenseman is talked as better.

Close. You will realize, that Lidström wasn't such great.

 

[Star Ocean]

Close. You will realize, that Lidström wasn't such great.

Always the same with the canadian posters.

 

[WiLBoY]

Lol at people calling Lidstrom overrated. If you actually watched him play, he was one of the most solid players ever on the ice.

 

[Star Ocean]

Lol at people calling Lidstrom overrated. If you actually watched him play, he was one of the most solid players ever on the ice.

They're just insecure.

Meanwhile the great bourque couldnt lead his team anywhere in 20 years and had to resort to an allstar team in order to win a cup.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

They're just insecure.

Meanwhile the great bourque couldnt lead his team anywhere in 20 years and had to resort to an allstar team in order to win a cup.

I mean the quality of one's team is an incredibly important aspect of whether a player in question is likely to win the cup in a given year. The lack of Cups on Bourque's part isn't because he "wasn't good enough."

 

[Star Ocean]

I mean the quality of one's team is an incredibly important aspect of whether a player in question is likely to win the cup in a given year. The lack of Cups on Bourque's part isn't because he "wasn't good enough."

Bourque has always been overrated by the North American posters though.