Potvin vs Lidstrom

[RabbinsDuck]

Having Potvin ahead of Lidstrom is like having Lindros/Forsberg ahead of Sakic, IMO.

 

[begbeee]

Having Potvin ahead of Lidstrom is like having Lindros/Forsberg ahead of Sakic, IMO.

Going with previous thread about 3rd best forward, better comparision would be having Messier ahead of Jagr.

 

[revolverjgw]

At their best I take Potvin by a tad, I like that kind of player more. Lidstrom's insane longevity more than makes up for that and puts him ahead overall.

Potvin wins the style points competition in a landslide. I'll give him that.

rs...

I often see Lidstrom supporters downplay fearsome physicality like all it was good for was "looking awesome" or whatever. This style point business. If anything a guy like Potvin can affect a game with intimidation in ways even more subtle and intangible than boring old unsexy misunderstood stick checking. It's not just about style and a place on Don Cherry's videos, it's about respect, fear and deterrence. Scott Stevens didn't have to land a super-awesome looking hit to affect the psyche and tactics of the star players he was assigned to shut down. And when he DID catch them with their head down, it resonated with both teams long after the victim's head stopped spinning, and with other teams long after the game ended. Paul Kariya notwithstanding, the Devil's identity and success had a lot to do with Stevens' scary aura. All he had to do was glare and you know he was in the opponents' heads.

Lidstrom's style also impacts the game in ways you can't quantify, of course. But there's legitimate reasons why some people prefer Potvin's brand of hockey beyond aesthetics. Especially back then when hockey wasn't so sanitized... it's no coincidence the Isles dynasty was mostly led by mean mothers... Trottier, Gillies, Potvin, even their goalie was a sociopath out for blood.

 

[redbull]

Potvin was dominant in games and he was one of the best in the game while winning the four straight cups. He was far better than Lidstrom was - prime to prime. Lidstrom plays a much more subtle game, Potvin was noticeable and effective.

Career value is a different story because Lidstrom is clearly an android.

I doubt you'll find any GM or coach that would choose Lidstrom before Potvin heading into a playoff series though.

 

[BenchBrawl]

At their best I take Potvin by a tad, I like that kind of player more. Lidstrom's insane longevity more than makes up for that and puts him ahead overall.



I often see Lidstrom supporters downplay fearsome physicality like all it was good for was "looking awesome" or whatever. This style point business. If anything a guy like Potvin can affect a game with intimidation in ways even more subtle and intangible than boring old unsexy misunderstood stick checking. It's not just about style and a place on Don Cherry's videos, it's about respect, fear and deterrence. Scott Stevens didn't have to land a super-awesome looking hit to affect the psyche and tactics of the star players he was assigned to shut down. And when he DID catch them with their head down, it resonated with both teams long after the victim's head stopped spinning, and with other teams long after the game ended. Paul Kariya notwithstanding, the Devil's identity and success had a lot to do with Stevens' scary aura. All he had to do was glare and you know he was in the opponents' heads.

Lidstrom's style also impacts the game in ways you can't quantify, of course. But there's legitimate reasons why some people prefer Potvin's brand of hockey beyond aesthetics. Especially back then when hockey wasn't so sanitized... it's no coincidence the Isles dynasty was mostly led by mean mothers... Trottier, Gillies, Potvin, even their goalie was a sociopath out for blood.

I wish this board was a french one so I could describe what I think in detail like you just did.

great post.

 

[Oowatanite]

That is a tough one because I really like Potvin but I think Lidstrom was a bit better and his resume shows that.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

I usually try to balance peak, prime, longevity playoffs ect, but in some instances I feel the overall edge at their best should way through.

I think at their absolute best Potvin was a better player. I'm not sure it's enough to put him ahead of Lidstrom though.

I don't think it's 100% given that Lidstrom is or should be number 5 on this list. I can see why many suggest it and don't really question their reasoning much, but I preferred Potvin as a player.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

At his absolute best, Chris Pronger was probably Larry Robinson's equal. Does anyone rank Pronger at the same level as Larry Robinson?

 

[jkrx]

At his absolute best, Chris Pronger was probably Larry Robinson's equal. Does anyone rank Pronger at the same level as Larry Robinson?

Good point but I think this will open up a can of worms...

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I'm sure many have Potvin over Harvey for the same reasons given here for him being over Lidstrom, right?

 

[Big Phil]

At his absolute best, Chris Pronger was probably Larry Robinson's equal. Does anyone rank Pronger at the same level as Larry Robinson?

To be brutally honest, he's starting to get close to that level. He is aging incredibly well. Does that mean Pronger can crack the top 10 defensemen eventually? Doubt it, but I think he's already among the top 20. You look at only 4 all-star selections and wonder but Robinson only had 6 and two Norrises. Both players are ones that looked good on paper but even better once you saw them play. I mean, 37 years old and Pronger would still be among the top defensemen in the game.

But overall Robinson > Pronger though of course

Potvin was dominant in games and he was one of the best in the game while winning the four straight cups. He was far better than Lidstrom was - prime to prime. Lidstrom plays a much more subtle game, Potvin was noticeable and effective.

Career value is a different story because Lidstrom is clearly an android.

I doubt you'll find any GM or coach that would choose Lidstrom before Potvin heading into a playoff series though.

Here's another tidbit people forget about Potvin. In 1979 he had 101 points. Trottier had 134, won the Hart. Bossy had 69 goals and 126 points. The next year Potvin played 31 games. Trottier and Bossy both slumped to 104 and 92 points. Coincidence? Doubt it. Put it this way, Potvin would have won the Norris in his 2nd season prior to Bossy and Trottier arriving in 1975 if not for Orr. In 1976 he won the Norris and outscored Trottier as a rookie 98-95. In 1988 the Islanders are 6th in the NHL. The next year, when Potvin is retired they are tied for worst in the NHL. Potvin had 19 goals in his final season. Think about that. Why he retired at 35 years old is puzzling. Robinson played until 40.

Lidstrom beats him out because of his longevity. Bourque beats him out because of his longevity too and Bourque beats Lidstrom because their longevity is tied and Bourque was better at his peak and had he was an all-star far more times. Potvin beats them both at his best, but he loses out to these guys on a technicality, they have played longer.

That being said, I have to admit that Lidstrom is #5 and Potvin #6 now. It is just too hard to justify the other way.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

At his absolute best, Chris Pronger was probably Larry Robinson's equal. Does anyone rank Pronger at the same level as Larry Robinson?

But posters are saying Potvin was better than Lidstrom, not probably Lidstrom's equal when at his best.

And having seen Pronger play right out of junior like Potvin did, believe me he was not really ready for the NHL. Pronger was all potential while Potvin was the real deal.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Coaching and Management Plus Age

But posters are saying Potvin was better than Lidstrom, not probably Lidstrom's equal when at his best.

And having seen Pronger play right out of junior like Potvin did, believe me he was not really ready for the NHL. Pronger was all potential while Potvin was the real deal.

Pronger was drafted as an 18 year old and played in the NHL the following season on a Hartford team that went thru a midseason coaching change,Pierre McGuire / Paul Holmgren on a mismanaged team. Second season he missed half the year due to the first lockout. Critical development time was lost. True for all the 1993-94 draft class that played in the NHL as juniors plus other first and second year NHLers.

Potvin was drafted as a twenty year old - 1972-73, old draft rules. Played in the NHL the following season on a second year expansion team coached by Al Arbour and managed by Bill Torrey. An ideal situation. His development was optimized and never interrupted.

 

[Stonefly]

Never too hard to find the Red Wing faithful here...

Potvin was a better player than Lidstrom. If you are rating careers then I suppose you could say Lidstrom's was better. But at their best, which is what concerns me when rating a player, Potvin had more of an impact in games.

 

[canucks4ever]

Potvin at his best was a better playoff performer than both bourque and lidstrom, his injury in 1980 really robbed an all time great career. He would be fighting for the #2 spot if he played the full 80 game season in 1980 and put up 106 points like he was on pace too. That would have clearly given him a better prime than either bourque or harvey.

From 1976-1979, Potvin outscored Trottier in the playoffs by a large chunk. So that should end any debate about how he relied on trottier, considering that he outscored him in the big games before they were a dynasty.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Never too hard to find the Red Wing faithful here...

Potvin was a better player than Lidstrom. If you are rating careers then I suppose you could say Lidstrom's was better. But at their best, which is what concerns me when rating a player, Potvin had more of an impact in games.

Potvin helped his team to 4 Stanley Cups, with one Conn Smythe, at a time when dynasties were a given.

Lidstrom helped his team to 4 Stanley Cups, with one Conn Smythe, at a time when dynasties were a thing of the past.

Lidstrom was much better defensively than Potvin, and that is where I place the most value in a defenseman. Ultimately, a defensman is never going to make as much of a difference offensively, as he can defensively (the best offensive defensemen are well under the best offensive forwards in production).

I am still a little surprised how much offense from a defenseman is valued over defense on this very forum, not so much from the general forum.

Lidstrom's defensive peak was decisively higher than Potvin's (despite his physicality), and he maintained an elite defensive game far longer than Potvin was able to. That's most important to me - but I appear to be in the minority with this view.

Offensively, Potvin has a peak of two years slightly above what Lidstrom obtained, but beyond those two years Lidstrom steadily outproduced him, offensively, for about 15 years.

I don't think these two defenseman are even close - especially if we allow defensemen have the ability to impact a game more defensively, than offensively (just as a forward has the opposite impact).

Lidstrom on that Islanders team is a 90 pt producer from the blue line, while providing better defense than Potvin, while also committing far less penalties, missing far less games to injury, and maintaining his elite play for a decade longer than Potvin. Islanders most likely win more Cups with a player like Lidstrom.

 

[norrisnick]

This thread = the '98 Norris race in a nutshell. On one side you've got a big visually impressive defenseman with big hits and a big shot that is noticed every shift. On the other you've got slight, subtle positioning wizard that does everything in his power to make sure nothing exciting happens when he's on the ice. Lidstrom is an anti-highlight reel. And after 20 years in the league people still don't fully get it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Really

Potvin helped his team to 4 Stanley Cups, with one Conn Smythe, at a time when dynasties were a given.

Lidstrom helped his team to 4 Stanley Cups, with one Conn Smythe, at a time when dynasties were a thing of the past.

Lidstrom was much better defensively than Potvin, and that is where I place the most value in a defenseman. Ultimately, a defensman is never going to make as much of a difference offensively, as he can defensively (the best offensive defensemen are well under the best offensive forwards in production).

I am still a little surprised how much offense from a defenseman is valued over defense on this very forum, not so much from the general forum.

Lidstrom's defensive peak was decisively higher than Potvin's (despite his physicality), and he maintained an elite defensive game far longer than Potvin was able to. That's most important to me - but I appear to be in the minority with this view.

Offensively, Potvin has a peak of two years slightly above what Lidstrom obtained, but beyond those two years Lidstrom steadily outproduced him, offensively, for about 15 years.

I don't think these two defenseman are even close - especially if we allow defensemen have the ability to impact a game more defensively, than offensively (just as a forward has the opposite impact).

Lidstrom on that Islanders team is a 90 pt producer from the blue line, while providing better defense than Potvin, while also committing far less penalties, missing far less games to injury, and maintaining his elite play for a decade longer than Potvin. Islanders most likely win more Cups with a player like Lidstrom.

Really. This scenario works only if you can show that Lidstrom had the ability to prevent the injuries suffered by Bryan Trottier and Mike Bossy that effectively shortened their careers or that he could prevent the aging process that claimed Billy Smith, Butch Goring and other Islanders.

It also presumes that Lidstrom would have created hockey pacifists out of the Flyers and Bruins. Potvin's physical play was critical to the Islanders moving ahead of the Flyers and Bruins by the late seventies.

Conversely, Potvin on the Wings would have provided them with a Norris quality defenseman from the start, a partner who could play with the likes of a Paul Coffey, whose skills and leadership were exactly what Scotty Bowman wanted.

 

[Stonefly]

This thread = the '98 Norris race in a nutshell. On one side you've got a big visually impressive defenseman with big hits and a big shot that is noticed every shift. On the other you've got slight, subtle positioning wizard that does everything in his power to make sure nothing exciting happens when he's on the ice. Lidstrom is an anti-highlight reel. And after 20 years in the league people still don't fully get it.

Yes that's it, only the enlightened Wing fans are able to see what Lidstrom does.
Please, this garbage got old really fast.

 

[BenchBrawl]

This thread = the '98 Norris race in a nutshell. On one side you've got a big visually impressive defenseman with big hits and a big shot that is noticed every shift. On the other you've got slight, subtle positioning wizard that does everything in his power to make sure nothing exciting happens when he's on the ice. Lidstrom is an anti-highlight reel. And after 20 years in the league people still don't fully get it.

you're talking like Potvin was all flashy and style while he was one of the most complete dman in hockey history.

I almost feel insulted with your last remark , like we ( regulars from the HOH boards ) didn't realized Lidstrom was playing a very subtle but very effective style of hockey , like we don't get ''it'' , but the fact is we're not trying to downplay anything Lidstrom has done , we're just saying ( some of us anyway ) that we think Denis Potvin , a franchise defenseman , cornerstone of a dynasty and probably of the rare dman that was elite at everything , was better than Lidstrom even though we fully know what Lidstrom has accomplished.

Your username , fair or not , also reveals your bias towards Lidstrom.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Really. This scenario works only if you can show that Lidstrom had the ability to prevent the injuries suffered by Bryan Trottier and Mike Bossy that effectively shortened their careers or that he could prevent the aging process that claimed Billy Smith, Butch Goring and other Islanders.

It also presumes that Lidstrom would have created hockey pacifists out of the Flyers and Bruins. Potvin's physical play was critical to the Islanders moving ahead of the Flyers and Bruins by the late seventies.

Conversely, Potvin on the Wings would have provided them with a Norris quality defenseman from the start, a partner who could play with the likes of a Paul Coffey, whose skills and leadership were exactly what Scotty Bowman wanted.

Well, you obviously ignored the crux of my post: Lidstrom being better defensively than Potvin.

Yes, pure opinion, but I think any team has a better chance of winning a Cup, and more of them, with a defenseman who excels more defensively, like Lidstrom, than a defenseman who excels offensively, like Potvin.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Well, you obviously ignored the crux of my post: Lidstrom being better defensively than Potvin.

Yes, pure opinion, but I think any team has a better chance of winning a Cup, and more of them, with a defenseman who excels more defensively, like Lidstrom, than a defenseman who excels offensively, like Potvin.

I would agree with you , if you didn't make it sound like Potvin was just an offensive defensemen.He also excelled at the physical-intimidation-nastiness play , and also excelled at making all his teammates confidant , skills and physically wise.He also excelled at leadership , probably top 5 in history as far as captain goes.

 

[lolwut]

Potvin helped his team to 4 Stanley Cups, with one Conn Smythe, at a time when dynasties were a given.

Lidstrom helped his team to 4 Stanley Cups, with one Conn Smythe, at a time when dynasties were a thing of the past.

Potvin never won a Conn Smythe.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

you're talking like Potvin was all flashy and style while he was one of the most complete dman in hockey history.

I almost feel insulted with your last remark , like we ( regulars from the HOH boards ) didn't realized Lidstrom was playing a very subtle but very effective style of hockey , truth is we all know that , but the fact is we're not trying to downplay anything Lidstrom has done , we're just saying ( some of us anyway ) that we think Denis Potvin , a franchise defenseman , cornerstone of a dynasty and probably of the rare dman that was elite at everything , was better than Lidstrom in our opinion.

Your username , fair or not , also reveals your bias towards Lidstrom.

Don't go trying to make yourself sound sane and all. Fact is, the vast majority of media, fans and historians have Lidstrom ahead of Potvin. You are a pretty extreme minority.

Potvin's lucky he wasn't facing Fetisov for Norris votes, and still only managed 3 Norrises to Lidstrom's 7 - and Lidstrom was facing the absolute best in the world at the time, unlike Potvin.

To me, you sound like someone trying to convince me Lindros was better than Sakic, because he was more dynamic and intimidating at his best, despite Sakic being an elite player (and we are talking -elite- not just 'good') for far longer.
It's just crazy talk to me.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I would agree with you , if you didn't make it sound like Potvin was just an offensive defensemen.He also excelled at the physical-intimidation-nastiness play , and also excelled at making all his teammates confidant , skills and physically wise.He also excelled at leadership , probably top 5 in history as far as captain goes.

I love that edge as well... I just don't think it is more important than actual defense.