Nicklas Lidstrom vs Doug Harvey

Status
Not open for further replies.

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,982
137,355
Bojangles Parking Lot
What does this even mean? Who is your best example, outside Orr, that is a special thinker offensively?

A few posts up -- Gretzky, Orr and Datsyuk are the ones that come to mind immediately. Lemieux, Kariya. You could probably throw the Sedins in there as a duo. Harvey is in that category as well. Players who had a next-level concept of what is possible in the game, beyond simply knowing the technical "best" play in a given situation.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
What does this even mean? Who is your best example, outside Orr, that is a special thinker offensively?

tarheel, specifically in comparison to Defenceman so no, Gretzky etc out though I suppose for an analogy its ok but lets be specific as per Fugu's question huh?.... So... Outside of Orr at #1 & superior to Lidstrom?... Doug Harvey, Ray Bourque & Paul Coffey. Harvey for the many reasons cited above; Bourque, who had he not played the majority of his games on the smaller Boston ice surface with a less than Stellar Supporting Cast wouldve absolutely put up a lot more numbers & who was a "completely balanced" Defenceman, outstanding defensively & offensively, QB'ng the PP, superior offensively to Lidstrom... Then youve got Paul Coffey. A better offensive mind from the Defence than Lidstom IMO. Coffey a Hire-Wire Act at times, one of the greatest skaters to ever lace them up & ya, one-two-three moves ahead of Lidstrom when it came to "thinking ahead", critical thought, visualization, dot-dot-dot-dot then executing offensively.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
A few posts up -- Gretzky, Orr and Datsyuk are the ones that come to mind immediately. Lemieux, Kariya. You could probably throw the Sedins in there as a duo. Harvey is in that category as well. Players who had a next-level concept of what is possible in the game, beyond simply knowing the technical "best" play in a given situation.


I think people will have their own opinions, but I know the Wings scored a heck of a lot more and possessed the puck a heck of a lot more when Lidstrom was on the ice, than when he was not on the ice.

I'm fairly confident that this had more to do with Lidstrom than anyone else. He wasn't flashy or physical (because he broke things up before he had to splatter someone) which in my mind is clearly due to his ability to see where the play was going and that his hockey smarts were well above most everyone else around him. Datsyuk is a great example of a forward with a similar ability.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
I'm with you up until the bolded. While Lidstrom had truly outstanding offensive skill -- especially as a passer in open ice -- he was not a special thinker offensively.

Defensively, yes, he was on another level. More in the range of virtuoso technique than artistic genius, but still. There was usually a big gap between him and his next-best peer defensively.

I don't agree. He was not a risk taker and instead played defense first but his vision and play on the PP when he went into offense mode was special. They had so many offensive weapons over the course of his career in Detroit and he was always on the first PP unit because he was lethal and was the guy they wanted handling the puck as last guy back. He was also a master at shooting the puck with his head up. He knew exactly what he was doing when he shot the puck. Even most pros look up first but then put their head down and shoot it and hope for the best.

I have no idea why you believe Harvey was any more "special" when it came to offense. For the last time, he trails Lidstrom in raw points, adjusted point, team finishes, and even ES points in comparison with their peers. Nothing points to Harvey as being better or more creative offensively.

Again, among the 9,000,000 people living in London today, including thousands of professional writers, there is not one who could empty the chamber pot of Shakespeare, who lived in a city only 2% the size. Highest-level talent is not a numbers game.

The question becomes how many are even trying to be the next Shakespeare now? Maybe they're striving to be a great film director or something more in line with modern times instead. With hockey there are far more people worldwide who are striving to be NHL players than during Harvey's time.

Art and music are most definitely competitions at the professional level.

Not really. If you go to see a concert are there dueling bands on the stage taking turns to outdo each other? Even if an artist is trying to sell more of something or do something better than a contemporary it's not at all the same form of competition as a sport. They create something on their own and then hold it up for comparison, they don't compete directly in the moment.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,982
137,355
Bojangles Parking Lot
Ugh, I forgot Coffey. Derp.

I think people will have their own opinions, but I know the Wings scored a heck of a lot more and possessed the puck a heck of a lot more when Lidstrom was on the ice, than when he was not on the ice.

I'm fairly confident that this had more to do with Lidstrom than anyone else. He wasn't flashy or physical (because he broke things up before he had to splatter someone) which in my mind is clearly due to his ability to see where the play was going and that his hockey smarts were well above most everyone else around him. Datsyuk is a great example of a forward with a similar ability.

Lidstrom was one of the best defensemen I've seen at making the technically-correct play. As you well know, he probably scored more points than any player in history on soft shots through screens, hard shots that created rebounds, and crisp wristers that the goalie couldn't see through Holmstrom's butt.

What I'm saying is there's a difference between a student who always knows the correct answer that will get him an A+, and one who stumps the teacher with an answer nobody's ever thought of before. One of these students is outstanding, the other is special.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,982
137,355
Bojangles Parking Lot
I have no idea why you believe Harvey was any more "special" when it came to offense.

Because absolutely everyone who saw him play agrees -- across the board, in unison -- that Harvey played the game offensively on a level that was completely beyond any of his peers.

Here's an example, which may have been posted here already for all I know: https://www.nhl.com/news/rating-the-smartest-player-of-all-time/c-391954

McGourty writes for NHL.com when they do articles with a historical wide-angle lens. As you can see, he has Lidstrom but not Harvey on his top-10 list of smartest players -- so he's not coming at this from some sort of old-man bias.

Talking about the two of them offensively, here's what he says:

Lidstrom - Lidstrom is a very fluid skater who relies on his speed, stickhandling, passing, knowledge of opponents and attack angles to passively dominate the game.

Harvey - Not even Orr could control the pace of a game from the blue line like Harvey.

That's a gap.

The question becomes how many are even trying to be the next Shakespeare now? Maybe they're striving to be a great film director or something more in line with modern times instead. With hockey there are far more people worldwide who are striving to be NHL players than during Harvey's time.

Include movie makers if you want. Include all writers of all kinds. It's been 400 years since Shakespeare died and nobody since has shown his level of command over the English language. Doubtful that anybody writing anything today is the next Shakespeare, would you not agree?

Consider the number of English-speakers on earth today, compared to that population in 1600.


Not really. If you go to see a concert are there dueling bands on the stage taking turns to outdo each other?

Have you never been to a jazz performance? That's exactly what happens. Armstrong routinely accepted challengers, many of whom were legendary performers in their own right, to exchange solos with him.

http://jazzistry.org/jazz-resources/artist-spotlights/louis-armstrong/

He later started playing with large jazz orchestras before staying with Fletcher Henderson’s Orchestra for a large part of his career. His trumpet prowess was challenged by other hornmen who would often split their lips while attempting to outplay him.

This is to say nothing of the fact that music is an audition-driven business. Professional musicians are constantly in direct competition with each other, until they reach such a pinnacle that they have name recognition.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Because absolutely everyone who saw him play agrees -- across the board, in unison -- that Harvey played the game offensively on a level that was completely beyond any of his peers.

Here's an example, which may have been posted here already for all I know: https://www.nhl.com/news/rating-the-smartest-player-of-all-time/c-391954

McGourty writes for NHL.com when they do articles with a historical wide-angle lens. As you can see, he has Lidstrom but not Harvey on his top-10 list of smartest players -- so he's not coming at this from some sort of old-man bias.

Talking about the two of them offensively, here's what he says:

Lidstrom - Lidstrom is a very fluid skater who relies on his speed, stickhandling, passing, knowledge of opponents and attack angles to passively dominate the game.

Harvey - Not even Orr could control the pace of a game from the blue line like Harvey.

That's a gap.

Even in this thread people have stated that Kelly was the better offensive defenseman and he had superior numbers. I think you're confusing people saying he "controlled the play" from the back end with being this "special" offensive player. Everything I've seen and read make Harvey and Lidstrom sound like extremely similar players in terms of style. The numbers don't point to what you are saying at all either so the question would then be why didn't Harvey actually produce more offense if he was that special?

Have you never been to a jazz performance? That's exactly what happens. Armstrong routinely accepted challengers, many of whom were legendary performers in their own right, to exchange solos with him.

http://jazzistry.org/jazz-resources/artist-spotlights/louis-armstrong/

This is to say nothing of the fact that music is an audition-driven business. Professional musicians are constantly in direct competition with each other, until they reach such a pinnacle that they have name recognition.

It's still not the same type of competition as sports. I can see some comparison but it's just so different. Those analogies comparing art and sports are always strange.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Usual......

Even in this thread people have stated that Kelly was the better offensive defenseman and he had superior numbers. I think you're confusing people saying he "controlled the play" from the back end with being this "special" offensive player. Everything I've seen and read make Harvey and Lidstrom sound like extremely similar players in terms of style. The numbers don't point to what you are saying at all either so the question would then be why didn't Harvey actually produce more offense if he was that special?



It's still not the same type of competition as sports. I can see some comparison but it's just so different. Those analogies comparing art and sports are always strange.

Now Lidstrom and Harvey are extremely similar, A few posts ago you were lauding the difference between Harvey - physicality and Lidstrom - lack of physicality.

Generating offensive play and getting credit for scoring are two different things. Bart Starr did not throw many TD passes relative to Manning, Marino, Favre, but he generated a running game with Hornung and Taylor. But there is no stat for hand-offs for touchdowns like there is for passes. But a touchdown is a touchdown and a running game keeps possession, generating less field time for the defence.

Harvey managed the offensive game expertly. The spacing, the movement, the pace. No stats for these attributes.
 
Last edited:

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Diversity

Chelios didn't take a lot of penalties due to standing up for his teammates though, it was more about bending the rules and getting caught or being plain dirty. Lidstrom simply rarely took penalties and therefore rarely put himself in the box or put his team down a man. Wouldn't a coach prefer a "role player" sit in the box instead of your best defenseman anyways?



Depth and talent where though? If they were taking a player from the back end and playing him at forward then either that "defenseman" was more valuable up front or they had more depth on defense than forward. Didn't Kelly play more forward with the Leafs than the Wings?



How can anything point to the Habs not being stacked in that era? They had Plante in net, two scoring lines, the top defenseman, and even when Harvey wasn't at his best his teammate stepped up and won the Norris. Sure, diverse but also stacked.

My point still stands about Kelly playing as a forward. He was Harvey's main competition for the Norris but playing forward would confuse voters in this regard. If your top competition for the Norris is playing forward he's no longer your top competition.



It wasn't inaccurate at all. It was exactly what I presented but you are going into something else, which is comparing Harvey against himself and Lidstrom against himself. If Lidstrom produced more offensively during the season then how can you give so much props to Harvey for simply bringing his playoff play up to Lidstrom's regular standard in terms of offense? We don't have adjusted numbers for the playoffs but that's what it seems like to me anyways.

Harvey's penalties averaged well under two minutes a game, including late game misconducts, and double minors where a talented player would accompany him. Coach will give up a minute a game gladly that have to carry a limited role player for 60 minutes a game with little diversity or benefit.

Still Harvey was the stick that stirred the drink and made it all work.

Last paragraph. You just realized the big difference between Harvey and Lidstrom and Harvey's superiority. Lidstrom thrived on repetition and execution. Harvey would adapt and create. Lidstrom's game offensively did not change much from the regular season to the playoffs. Harvey would set things in motion but come playoff time when in seven game stretches teams would adapt he would adapt and assume the necessary roles, more direct production, required for team success. Lidstrom did not adapt in a similar fashion.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
Harvey's penalties averaged well under two minutes a game, including late game misconducts, and double minors where a talented player would accompany him. Coach will give up a minute a game gladly that have to carry a limited role player for 60 minutes a game with little diversity or benefit.

Still Harvey was the stick that stirred the drink and made it all work.

Last paragraph. You just realized the big difference between Harvey and Lidstrom and Harvey's superiority. Lidstrom thrived on repetition and execution. Harvey would adapt and create. Lidstrom's game offensively did not change much from the regular season to the playoffs. Harvey would set things in motion but come playoff time when in seven game stretches teams would adapt he would adapt and assume the necessary roles, more direct production, required for team success. Lidstrom did not adapt in a similar fashion.


Ah, grasshopper, are you not the one who is always telling us how coaching and development has changed? Sure, in your opinion, it's all gotten worse, but I think what we can agree on is that it is not the same. Not by a long shot.

That reason exactly is why I cannot wrap my mind around these comparisons you blokes like to do on this board. You can adjust all day long and until Sunday, but what you get are approximations of "some" aspects. That's not good enough in my book. I get that most of the posters who engage in these discussions agree to that format, but the mistake they make (or the demand they place on the rest of us since they're the declared majority) is that we accept their assumptions and process. Again-- I can't do that as it doesn't make sense to me to compare a defender from the 70s to today, let alone one from the 50s (or earlier).

Lidstrom played his entire career under strong coaches who completely bought into their systems. He didn't demand that Holmstrom plant himself in front of the net. That was mostly Babcock and his inability to get creative about most things. Lidstrom excelled over two decades and under three different coaches, and two distinct rosters that both won Cups. The second group should have had another in 2009. His GM said there was only one constant-- Nick Lidstrom.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
That's not even what happened. You claimed Harvey had more PIMs because he fought so I asked specifically how many fights was he in, as in you know, "how many", "how much", "a quantity", and you proceeded to go ballistic and listed all his credentials as a fighter and his history in a long and unnecessary tirade. Then questioned if I really read the book. It was a very strange exchange but now your account of it has completed changed from reality.

Nope, I have always been in the right reality.
I figured out right from the beginning that you were testing me to see if I had read the book and I turned it around on you.
You didn't like that and threw a bit of a hissy.
That's the reality I was in and played it that way exactly.

Stan Mikita? His first AS nomination was the same season Harvey had his last. Mikita and Hull were 16 and 15 years younger than Harvey. It's not what you're trying to sell here.

And Crosby is 17 years younger than Lidstrom, what's your point?
Did Lidstrom face Crosby or not?
Whether it's Mikita or someone else, the point is that Harvey, even when facing the last place teams in the O6, was still facing higher quality opponents on a nightly basis than Lidstrom was.
Again, 9 expansion teams and a serious have/have not payroll disparity among the other 21 teams during Lidstrom's career.
There's nothing to debate about this, it's simply fact.

Besides, Harvey only having to face a small group of Canadian defenders is simply far more beneficial to his AS and Norris record and how he is viewed overall. The other defenders of his time had to play against the same forwards over and over again as well, except Harvey was on the most stacked team, other than the Red Wings some seasons, and he had 7 time Vezina winner Plante behind him most years. Again, it's simply not what you're trying to submit here.

Just like Lidstrom facing a weak and inconsistent peer group allowed him to win 7 Norris. He doesn't even win half of them playing at any other time in history.
Seems like you have "forgotten" again that Lidstrom played on one of the most stacked teams of his own era.
Despite Harvey being on a stacked team, there was still a hell of a lot less of a gap between his team and say the last place Hawks than Lidstrom and his stacked team playing the last place Isles/Preds/Thrashers/Lightning.


I didn't just use raw (straight?) numbers, I used adjusted as well and team finishes. They all have Lidstrom comfortably ahead.

It doesn't matter what you use because Dmen produced offense, especially goals, completely different than they do today or have since the 70's.
No slapshot and no rushing the puck, end of story.
However!
When Dmen back then were permitted to get involved with the offense and take some chances was on the powerplay. Harvey dominated his peers on the powerplay.

Harvey was as effective offensively at ES as Tim Horton, and trailed Kelly but a wide margin, and trailed Gadsby and Pronovost. He made all of his gains on the PP and in their primes Lidstrom was actually higher up his peer rankings in ES points than Harvey. You can refuse to believe whatever you want. You seem to be refusing to believe that Harvey is more guilty of relying on the PP than Lidstrom even though you criticized the former of this at length over the years.

Of course Harvey relied on the PP for most of his points, all Dmen back then did. It was the only time they were allowed to play offense back then.
And again, when allowed to play offense, no one could keep up with Harvey, not even Kelly.

Do you not realize how ridiculous this sounds? Look at the impact the non-Canadians have had on AS nominations and awards and all the other accolades over the years. Then you turn around and require evidence that they've increased the number of elite players in the league with that in mind? There's clearly no argument to be made here by you. Lidstrom is a prime example of what having elite non-Canadians does to the landscape of the league.

And it still didn't make Lidstrom's peer group any stronger during his 7 Norris, just more diverse.
There aren't more truly Elite players. Year after year after year after year it's still only a couple of players that stand out above everyone else. Sometimes there's one more, sometimes there's one less but it never really changes and nothing you can say will alter this fact.


Keep wondering. I'm not covering every player. We have enough tangents already.

Uh huh...I'll let you in on a little secret...nobody's fooled.
I specifically mentioned Howe and Hull, they were part of the point I made. You left them out intentionally because you knew there was no way you could continue your narrative with them involved.

The slapshot and being discouraged to rush the puck is why Harvey produced so few ES points, and fewer than his peers as mentioned earlier? Why did it only affect him? That's the point, it's not just about Kelly anymore. You want to place Lidstrom in a certain group but where does Harvey sit? By all statistical evidence he sits lower than Lidstrom offensively.

So few? So much lower than his peers?
Last I checked he was around the same as his peers at ES and blew them all away on the PP. Are we looking at the same chart?
Why did Lidstrom produce so few ES points and fewer than his peers?
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Looking at these stats you would assume that Doug Harvey did not play shorthanded regularly. How else would you explain having the lowest short handed point totals amongst his peers. Far behind the leaders. Far behind everybody really, including his teammate Tom Johnson. While being said to have had a great outlet pass, great defensive ability and an all time great ability to dictate the game. Shouldn´t he have picked up a point here and there.

But it sounds strange that he wouldn´t have played short handed. Anyone have an explanation for this?

The Canadiens played more conservatively shorthanded than other teams of the era, particularly the Leafs, Red Wings, and later Black Hawks, at least based on short handed point totals of ALL their players.

According to Todd Denaualt (who published several hockey history books, including one on Jacques Plante, and who used to post on hfboards as Canadiens Fan, this is how the Canadiens dynasty built their defense around Harvey and Tom Johnson:

Canadiens Fan said:
Johnson and Harvey were rarely if at all paired as a duo. Toe Blake pretty much rotated the other three (sometimes four) defenseman around Harvey and Johnson. If you watch some of the old games you'll see that there is rarely a moment where the Canadiens don't have either Harvey and Johnson on the ice, but rarely, if ever are they paired together.

Canadiens Fan said:
having watched all of the available footage (including some unavailable to the general public), in addition to having comprehensively interviewed Red Fisher, Dick Irvin, Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard, Dickie Moore, Phil Goyette etc ... all (in the research for my Jacques Plante biography) I think I have some grasp of the issue.

In the course of my research I was also fortunate to be able to discuss Doug Harvey at length with Jean-Guy Talbot and 'Junior' Langlois (two Habs defensemen of the time) and it is from these discussions (and then a later check of the available footage) that I became aware of Toe Blake's penchant for not having Harvey and Johnson on the ice at the same time, and of rotating his other defensemen through them.

To repeat, according to the available footage, as well as the testimonials of Talbot and Langlois ... Harvey and Johnson were not a regular defense pairing.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=719716

I asked Todd for more specifics on the usage of Johnson (and Harvey) via PM. This is his response:

Canadiens Fan said:
No problem, glad to help.

[At even strength both Harvey and Johnson would generally play the right side with the other defenceman rotating around the two of them.

However, on penalty kills Toe Blake would often move Harvey over to the left side beside Johnson.

From what I watched Johnson almost always played the right side, while Harvey tended to move between the two quite frequently.

Hope that helps.

Todd Denault
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Sameness

Ah, grasshopper, are you not the one who is always telling us how coaching and development has changed? Sure, in your opinion, it's all gotten worse, but I think what we can agree on is that it is not the same. Not by a long shot.

That reason exactly is why I cannot wrap my mind around these comparisons you blokes like to do on this board. You can adjust all day long and until Sunday, but what you get are approximations of "some" aspects. That's not good enough in my book. I get that most of the posters who engage in these discussions agree to that format, but the mistake they make (or the demand they place on the rest of us since they're the declared majority) is that we accept their assumptions and process. Again-- I can't do that as it doesn't make sense to me to compare a defender from the 70s to today, let alone one from the 50s (or earlier).

Lidstrom played his entire career under strong coaches who completely bought into their systems. He didn't demand that Holmstrom plant himself in front of the net. That was mostly Babcock and his inability to get creative about most things. Lidstrom excelled over two decades and under three different coaches, and two distinct rosters that both won Cups. The second group should have had another in 2009. His GM said there was only one constant-- Nick Lidstrom.

Well you almost had it then let it slip away.

Babcock did not get creative because he was busy demanding the execution of basics which Lidstrom was excellent at doing. In Harvey's era all forwards understood the value of going in front of the net. They all understood like a six year old playing hockey for the first time that scoring goals is easier from in front of the net.

Before you can get creative you have to nail the basics. This is the root of cross generational comparisons. The ability to master the basics as opposed to having them imposed by a coach. Recognizing these traits and abilities, the foundation of such comparisons.

Harvey would then work with shaping these various skills and aptitudes to produce results while countering the opposition. Lidstrom was just excellent at exploiting the shortcomings that have come along over time. He did it for a very long time, a dual tribute to his skills and the inability of others to adapt. Harvey's time a forward not willing to go to the net would not see the NHL. Lidstrom's time a coach is criticized for getting one to do it.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
Babcock only thinks of N-S play, and dump and chase. That man almost turned me into a non-Wings fan. Oddly, Scotty was able to do more by doing different things. :)
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
Even in this thread people have stated that Kelly was the better offensive defenseman and he had superior numbers. I think you're confusing people saying he "controlled the play" from the back end with being this "special" offensive player. Everything I've seen and read make Harvey and Lidstrom sound like extremely similar players in terms of style. The numbers don't point to what you are saying at all either so the question would then be why didn't Harvey actually produce more offense if he was that special?

No, they were only similar in the way they played defense and made great first passes. Changes dramatically after that.
Harvey would have the puck on his stick a lot more and for much longer. He was a true possession player, not a player playing in a possession system like Lidstrom was.

And again, please point out to me how Lidstrom was more special than Chara at even strength when "the numbers don't point to what you are saying at all".
The numbers don't show Lidstrom to be more special than Chara but yet no one has any issue saying that he was.
We just KNOW that he was.
Just like people who watched Harvey play, just KNEW that he was special compared to everyone else.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
Because absolutely everyone who saw him play agrees -- across the board, in unison -- that Harvey played the game offensively on a level that was completely beyond any of his peers.

Here's an example, which may have been posted here already for all I know: https://www.nhl.com/news/rating-the-smartest-player-of-all-time/c-391954

McGourty writes for NHL.com when they do articles with a historical wide-angle lens. As you can see, he has Lidstrom but not Harvey on his top-10 list of smartest players -- so he's not coming at this from some sort of old-man bias.

Talking about the two of them offensively, here's what he says:

Lidstrom - Lidstrom is a very fluid skater who relies on his speed, stickhandling, passing, knowledge of opponents and attack angles to passively dominate the game.

Harvey - Not even Orr could control the pace of a game from the blue line like Harvey.

That's a gap.

Bingo!

I think the key word there is "passively".
That's the difference between Harvey and Lidstrom. Harvey and almost everyone really.
Harvey also dominated passively but as soon as the puck was on his stick he dominated non-passively as well.
Lidstrom simply didn't dominate or control a game with the puck on his stick like Harvey could or Orr or Bourque for that matter.

That's why Harvey is #2 all-time. No one, not even Orr dominated a game both passively and non-passively like Harvey did.

Harvey is quite simply the most complete Dman to ever play.
 

Bear of Bad News

Your Third or Fourth Favorite HFBoards Admin
Sep 27, 2005
13,361
26,528
Folks -

We're going in circles, and have been doing so for weeks.

Present your closing arguments, because this thread will close in 24 hours.

That is all.

As promised - move along, por favor.

(Slightly nervous that my boss is now active in the thread :scared:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->