In '83 Rod Langway won the Norris Trophy with 32 points. Paul Coffey that year had 96 points. The next year Langway won the Norris again with 33 points. Coffey had 126 points. Coffey then won the next two Norris Trophies. But my question to everyone is: was the result of Langway winning the Norris due to his outstanding defensive presence despite lack of offense or was it due to Coffey's sometimes mediocre defense. Or was it a combination of both. Personally I think Langway was a very great defensive defenseman who was actually runner up to Gretzky in the Hart Trophy voting in '83 I believe. And despite his offense he could be my defenseman anyday of the week. Now Coffey has always been criticized for his defense. he was average defensively IMO. he wouldnt throw a hard check so much but he's always be in position and had the speed to backcheck any time he led the rush. But how did a huge point differential like that result in Langway winning the Norris? Do oyu think Langway was that GOOd defensively or Coffey that BAD defensively?