Now when Lidstrom got his 5th norris, how far can he climb?

[LapierreSports]

Here are a couple of questions regarding Lidstrom.

1) Can he reach Doug Harvey's 7 Norris Trophies?
2) Can he actually become the 2nd best defenseman alltime? (after Orr)
3) Can he become the best european player ever in the NHL

1) If Lidstrom play 5 more seasons he might do it.
2) If Lidstrom win 1 more cup, maybe a hart and a couple of more norris, then this is a yes.
3) Yes he can.

1) Yes...why not !! I think he has a good chance. I see him playing for at least 5 years.
2) No, still behind Orr, Harvey, Bourque, Shore, Robinson and Potvin.
Theres pretty much no chance Lidstrom will a Hart, maybe a Conn Smythe.
3) Jagr is the best europeen player ever in the NHL.

 

[Zine]

Do not confuse quality and quantity. Sure there's more players now. But that doesn't mean there are more elite, Norris-contending defencemen. Lots of good, not a lot of great. Gonchar might be the worst two-time all-star defenceman ever.

Yes it does.....it's the simple law of exponential averages.

You underrate today's talent. The talent pool that NHLers come from today puts that of the past to shame; it’s only natural that there should be MORE elite players today.
And, despite this, you’re saying there’s less elite D talent in today’s game?......even though today’s talent pool is probably 100-200 times that of Shore’s era?


Fact is, today, it's so much more difficult for 'elite' talents to seperate themselves because the number of collective 'upper tier' players has grown.
It's not the same as some generational talent like Shore being able to ride roughshod over 1930's competition anymore.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Your name is God Bless Canada.

I bet, if Lidström was Canadien/played for Vancouver, we would see a different kind of post!

Here's a new debate technique for you: instead of veiled allegations of prejudice, why don't you try refuting my arguments. Don't attack me personally. When you do that, all you've done is admitted your defeat in the argument. You know that you're wrong, you know that you don't have a credible argument, so you resort to personal attacks.

Well here's something to chew on: the competition for the Norris, from about 1997 to 2004, was uninspiring. And it really reached a zenith during Lidstrom's three Norris wins. Every year the runner-up was a guy who was a Norris contender before Lidstrom was even draft eligible.

Sergei Gonchar was a two-time all-star. Eric DesJardins was a second-team all-star in 1998 and 1999. Rob Blake was a four-time all-star. I think Rob Blake will be in the HHOF one day, but I wouldn't put him in. The competition for those all-star spots during Blake's prime was too shallow.

 

[nik jr]

If you're going to discount everyone elses accomplishments because they occured XX number of years ago then its pretty pointless to try and rank a player all time.

Considering Langway was the last pure defensive player to win the Norris in 25 years will people be saying the Norris winner from 1985-2010 didnt go to the best defenseman but one who put up big points.

i'm not discounting anyone's accomplishments. i think shore was the best player of his time. i am discounting the notion that the hart trophy winner was always the best player.
if you had been paying attention, i've just been saying that most valuable to his team was much more important in hart voting than it is today. i didn't think it was so controversial.
if hart was same as best player, why for example was rollins not a 1st or 2nd all-star when he won the hart or when he was runner-up? how did the 1st all-star RW, art ross and richard winner, from the top team in 1934 finish behind 3 players from the 2nd all-star team and behind 1 player who wasn't an all-star (and possibly other players)?
why are hart-winning, multiple all-star, SC-winning dmen like goodfellow and siebert almost never considered top 10 all-time dmen?
is it a coincidence that dmen finished in top 5 in hart voting much more in the early NHL than after the war? or that 5 of the 7 dmen who won the hart trophy played in the early NHL?
from 1926-38 a dman was always a finalist; often 2 or 3 were dmen. in that span, 17 of the 38 finalists were dmen. (even if shore is removed from the voting it is still 12.)


i don't think many would say that about the norris, since langway may have been the only purely defensive dman to win (norris winners almost always put up big points.), and because all norris winners in that span other than maybe coffey were somewhere from good to excellent defensively.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Fact is, today, it's so much more difficult for 'elite' talents to seperate themselves because the number of collective 'upper tier' players has grown.
It's not the same as some generational talent like Shore being able to ride roughshod over 1930's competition anymore.

See post #79.

As best as we can measure it, the spread in talent is equally large in Shore and Lidstrom's era. Therefore if you accuse Shore of beating up againt weak opponents and/or facing weaker top-end opponents for the Hart, than the same points are true of Lidstrom.

You might say that players, overall, are better today due to equipment and training. However, Shore faced the same relative quality of opposition that Lidstrom faces today.

 

[Sturminator]

1. Orr
2. Harvey
3. Shore
4. Bourque
5. Potvin
6. Kelly (this based on overall accomplishments, only about 2/3rds of which came as a defenseman)
7. Lidstrom
8. Robinson
9. Coffey
10. Fetisov

One through ten.

 

[Sturminator]

IMO, Lidstrom is making a serious charge for the top 5, he's on par with Robinson and Kelly, but could strike at Bourque and Potvin.

I'm not entirely sure how to compare Nick to Kelly because of Kelly's eight productive seasons as a center (not to mention the fact that he played some left wing in Detroit, as well) and ludicrous number of Cups with two different franchises, but in terms of overall career and because Kelly was mostly a defenseman, I put him ahead of Nick.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I'm not entirely sure how to compare Nick to Kelly because of Kelly's eight productive seasons as a center (not to mention the fact that he played some left wing in Detroit, as well) and ludicrous number of Cups with two different franchises, but in terms of overall career and because Kelly was mostly a defenseman, I put him ahead of Nick.

As a defenceman, I'd take Larry Robinson ahead of Red Kelly. Robinson is still the barometre by which all big, mobile offensive defencemen are judged. Strong and terrific defensively, too.

As a player, I'd take Red Kelly, simply because of his versatility and all-round game.

 

[vancityluongo]

I'd have him anywhere from 6th to 9th.

 

[nik jr]

Here are a couple of questions regarding Lidstrom.

1) Can he reach Doug Harvey's 7 Norris Trophies?
2) Can he actually become the 2nd best defenseman alltime? (after Orr)
3) Can he become the best european player ever in the NHL

1) If Lidstrom play 5 more seasons he might do it.
2) If Lidstrom win 1 more cup, maybe a hart and a couple of more norris, then this is a yes.
3) Yes he can.

1 decent chance
2 very unlikely without winning hart at least twice
3 very unlikely to pass hasek without winning hart