RANK! Better Career: Bourque vs Lidstrom vs Coffey vs Stevens

[Stephen]

If Coffey had just retired in 1996 instead of spending the last half dozen years of his career as a journeyman, would his legacy have been protected from historical downgrading?

 

[plusandminus]

If Coffey had just retired in 1996 instead of spending the last half dozen years of his career as a journeyman, would his legacy have been protected from historical downgrading?

I think so.
I also think injuries plays a role when judging players. Coffey relied a lot on great skating, and when he couldn't skate as good any more his game suffered. But that shouldn't take away his prime accomplishments.

I also think Ray Bourque would have been looked differently upon if he hadn't finally won the Stanley Cup. If this thread is about having a successful career, then I think think Coffey was even more successful than Bourque in that he won so many Stanley Cups. (Of course Bourque was extremely succesful in as a player get all this Norris' and All Star Team awards.)

 

[quoipourquoi]

If Coffey had just retired in 1996 instead of spending the last half dozen years of his career as a journeyman, would his legacy have been protected from historical downgrading?

I think the bigger issue is that Detroit spun a narrative that he was the reason why they couldn't win championships in the mid-1990s, which was BS. I think he's the same tier as Lidstrom, but they offer different things that compliment different styles of teams. And if you saw Lidstrom's aggressive offensive play in the mid-1990s, you know that he couldn't be Paul Coffey any more than Coffey could be Nicklas Lidstrom. I think they're probably #5-7 in any order with Potvin - just North of the Kelly, Fetisov, and Robinson crowd.

I might take Stevens for a playoff run before any of them, but he's a little bit behind the other three.

 

[tjcurrie]

Is it fair to rank Lidstrom #1 (4 Cups - 7x Norris - Conn Smythe - Olympic gold) ahead of Bourque even though Bourque was the better defenseman? Because that's almost where I'm headed here. Very tough choice though.

 

[BraveCanadian]

If Coffey had just retired in 1996 instead of spending the last half dozen years of his career as a journeyman, would his legacy have been protected from historical downgrading?

IMO he would have been much better thought of if he had not stuck around long enough to fade away.

 

[Thenameless]

Scott Stevens for me. I understand why the others are winning this poll, but I really like that edge that Stevens played with. He did all three things well: defend, score, and hit. He was pretty good in the playoffs too. I suppose I put a little more emphasis on hitting than others, and that's why I tend to prefer D-men like Stevens, Rob Blake, Denis Potvin, and Chris Pronger.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I agree. Good summary.
Lidstrom won more than Coffey, both with his teams and individually. Look at Detrotit's win percentage before Lidstrom entered the team, and after he left it, and compare it with when he was on the team. Like night and day.

I find Coffey underrated here on HOH. I think he was overall an excellent and dominating player during his prime. Great defensively too, in my opinion as good as Ray Bourque. (Now some might ridicule me for thinking that, but I have to write what I've seen. I also think Bourque's defensive was/is overrated.) When Coffey's legs, skating and body were at its best, he was simply great.
I rate Bourque's career above Coffey's, due to his better longevity, but it's not by a huge margin.

Stevens to me is 4th.

Don't think you have much company in that camp.

 

[Dissonance]

I think the bigger issue is that Detroit spun a narrative that he was the reason why they couldn't win championships in the mid-1990s, which was BS.

Yeah, Coffey's reputation has probably been hurt by the fact that teams kept winning Cups shortly after trading him away — Edmonton in 1988, Pittsburgh in 1992 (and, really, they won in 1991 with Coffey mostly injured on the sidelines), and then Detroit in 1997. Even the Kings in 1993 had their big Cup run immediately after trading him away.

And agreed that this seems a little unfair. Coffey was utterly dominant in 1994-'95 and arguably the best player on that Red Wings team in the regular season and in their run to the Finals. And yeah he had that disastrous game against the Devils when he got torched by Niedermayer, but the whole team was pretty awful in that series. Yzerman was basically a no-show, Vernon was laughable, etc. But Coffey tends to get singled out there.

 

[habsfanatics*]

I think so.
I also think injuries plays a role when judging players. Coffey relied a lot on great skating, and when he couldn't skate as good any more his game suffered. But that shouldn't take away his prime accomplishments.

I also think Ray Bourque would have been looked differently upon if he hadn't finally won the Stanley Cup. If this thread is about having a successful career, then I think think Coffey was even more successful than Bourque in that he won so many Stanley Cups. (Of course Bourque was extremely succesful in as a player get all this Norris' and All Star Team awards.)

I tend to think Paul Coffey is underrated defensively too. I don't see him as Ray Bourque good, but he's certainly not Phil Housley bad either, which seems to be the portrayal here quite often.

 

[habsfanatics*]

All-star votes etc, to me, when you're comparing guys with 10 or more each it kind of loses its meaning imo. Kind of cancel each other out in a sense, when two players have ridiculous amounts of achievements on both sides, as is the case between Lids/Bourque I always default to the player who was the best at their absolute peak and there is zero doubt in my mind that Bourque's best was better than Lidstrom's best. To me it's close with all things considered, but clearly Bourque.

Probably doesn't make a lot of sense, but it does to me.

 

[plusandminus]

(mod)

I do think peak Coffey was underrated for his defence. When I watch his old Edmonton games, or Canada games from those years, I find an excellent overall player. He wasn't of course a great hitter, like Scott Stevens who I think you like, but made up for it with his mobility and stick handling.
I do think Bourque is in hindsight being a bit "glorified". He was great offensively, with an accurate shot and great passing. I think his offense rather than his defence made him end up high in Norris voting. Different opinions should be allowed without chuckling, and when I for example look at old videos of Potvin I find him considerably better defensively than Bourque (and the same goes for guys like Kasatonov and Fetisov or more recent players like Lidstrom).

I think players are sometimes looked upon in a rather stereotyped way.

I said I still think Bourque was the better player career wise.

 

[BraveCanadian]

(mod)
I do think peak Coffey was underrated for his defence. When I watch his old Edmonton games, or Canada games from those years, I find an excellent overall player. He wasn't of course a great hitter, like Scott Stevens who I think you like, but made up for it with his mobility and stick handling.
I do think Bourque is in hindsight being a bit "glorified". He was great offensively, with an accurate shot and great passing. I think his offense rather than his defence made him end up high in Norris voting. Different opinions should be allowed without chuckling, and when I for example look at old videos of Potvin I find him considerably better defensively than Bourque (and the same goes for guys like Kasatonov and Fetisov or more recent players like Lidstrom).

I think players are sometimes looked upon in a rather stereotyped way.

I said I still think Bourque was the better player career wise.

Most people here never saw Coffey during his prime years and many who did are divided on him because traditionalists didn't like how he played defense even in his prime.

So you get the snide comments immediately and repeatedly about him and we end up with a caricature.

Also agree with you that Bourque wasn't as good defensively as Potvin in beast mode or Lidstrom. He was still darn good though.

 

[Big Phil]

Most people here never saw Coffey during his prime years and many who did are divided on him because traditionalists didn't like how he played defense even in his prime.

So you get the snide comments immediately and repeatedly about him and we end up with a caricature.

I'll tell you one thing, can people find a whole slew of times when Coffey choked in a big game situation? Not many, and that's offensively and defensively. During the regular season I'll admit that Coffey could be a little loosey-goosey defensively but he also carried the puck a lot and controlled the pace of the game. It isn't as if he took an end to end rush and then didn't backcheck. It is more along the lines of not being as physical in the corners or in front of the net and of course the odd time he may have gotten caught pinching/cheating.

Coffey wasn't a guy out of position either. It is just that when you compare Coffey defensively to the all-time greats, there are those that did it better than him. Just like almost everyone couldn't hold a candle to him offensively. A guy like Housley rarely made up for his defensive lapses, or they cancelled each other out. Do people honestly think any deficiencies defensively that Coffey had weren't made up - and then doubled - from his offensive output?

 

[livewell68]

Nothing against Stevens of course who is a lock cinch HHOFer and one of the greats, but if you were building a team from scratch would you take him over Coffey?

Many including myself would. Stevens was more intimidating and although not nearly as gifted offensively, was no slouch at moving the puck up and was a much better shut down defender.

Stevens also seems to have been the better leader as I've heard some less positive things about Coffey as a teammate.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

(mod)

I do think peak Coffey was underrated for his defence. When I watch his old Edmonton games, or Canada games from those years, I find an excellent overall player. He wasn't of course a great hitter, like Scott Stevens who I think you like, but made up for it with his mobility and stick handling.
I do think Bourque is in hindsight being a bit "glorified". He was great offensively, with an accurate shot and great passing. I think his offense rather than his defence made him end up high in Norris voting. Different opinions should be allowed without chuckling, and when I for example look at old videos of Potvin I find him considerably better defensively than Bourque (and the same goes for guys like Kasatonov and Fetisov or more recent players like Lidstrom).

I think players are sometimes looked upon in a rather stereotyped way.

I said I still think Bourque was the better player career wise.

Bourque is not overrated defensively. He was basically the whole show for Boston. I don't need old videos, I saw him play start to finish. Almost always paired with a rookie, an over-the-hill vet or Don Sweeney (who wasn't exactly an all-star). Only Robinson and Orr had a higher +/- for their careers and his teammates weren't even close to the players those 2 played with. To me, Bourque is more overrated offensively than defensively.

As for Coffey, I didn't see him nearly as much as Bourque. But enough to know he was not a great player in his own end. Best offensively aside from Orr, for sure.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Another vote for

1) Bourque
2) Lidstrom
3) Coffey
4) Stevens

To me there's not a single tough choice in that ranking.The closest is Bourque and Lidstrom, and this horse has been beaten to death already.I would always take Bourque if I had the choice, and that's nothing against Lidstrom who was a top notch franchise defenseman.

 

[shazariahl]

I'll tell you one thing, can people find a whole slew of times when Coffey choked in a big game situation? Not many, and that's offensively and defensively. During the regular season I'll admit that Coffey could be a little loosey-goosey defensively but he also carried the puck a lot and controlled the pace of the game. It isn't as if he took an end to end rush and then didn't backcheck. It is more along the lines of not being as physical in the corners or in front of the net and of course the odd time he may have gotten caught pinching/cheating.

Coffey wasn't a guy out of position either. It is just that when you compare Coffey defensively to the all-time greats, there are those that did it better than him. Just like almost everyone couldn't hold a candle to him offensively. A guy like Housley rarely made up for his defensive lapses, or they cancelled each other out. Do people honestly think any deficiencies defensively that Coffey had weren't made up - and then doubled - from his offensive output?

Agreed. Coffey get a lot less credit than he deserves - and not just here either. He could have easily had 2 or 3 more Norris trophies, but a lot of people in his day didn't like his play style either. But there were years (especially before Messier started to come into his own) where Coffey was the 2nd best player on the Oilers. I actually think if he were playing today he would be given a lot more credit for his offensive genius. When you look at offensive defensemen, there's Orr, Coffey, and then a gigantic chasm between Coffey and whoever you think is number 3.

 

[Sentinel]

Lidstrom is a clear #1 for me. He was the best DEFENSEMAN of them all and a backbone behind every last one of his team victories. He didn't win more Norrises earlier in his career because of the Canadian voting bias and voters' belief that defensemen must hit. Then it's Bourque, Coffey, and Stevens.

If you have Mario Lemieux coming down on you in the last minute of the game, I wanna have Niklas there against him.

 

[johan f]

I don't think those two extra norrises mean that much when you take to account who they competed with. Bourque had Chelios, Potvin, Leetch, MacInnis,Coffey, Stevens etc. and Lidas started winning those norrises after those guys were out of the league or at the twilight years of their career. Chara, Niedermayer, Pronger, Weber, Blake etc. are all great players but Bourque competed with one of the best generation of NHL defensemen.

and also Bourque had 13 first all star team selections compared to Lidström's 10.

Lidström has the better team accomblishments but that's about it. Bourque has the peak, prime and career IMO. That's no knock for Lidas by any means though.

I think Nick was robbed of two Norris before he won his first (on the other hand he got one only based on his name in final years of career). What I want to say is that he was dominating among very high level peers before he won the first one.

 

[Horvath Broncos]

I think Nick was robbed of two Norris before he won his first (on the other hand he got one only based on his name in final years of career). What I want to say is that he was dominating among very high level peers before he won the first one.

Which years do you mean? But even then he wasn't competing with prime Chelios, Coffey, Bourque etc. but the version in the latter parts of their career. So through Lidas's career he had worse competion than Bourque.

 

[johan f]

years of '97-00 one can find a season or two where he was deserving. Not only for how he actually played on ice, but also statwise. In 1997/98 he was leading whole league in total goals on ice. For instance. I would totaly not hold that against him that there was weaker competition...besides we have no clue how he would have played in an earlier era.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

I think Bourque would have taken Lidstroms career and ran away with it, while Lidstrom would never have switched with anybody.

Bourque was the better player but Lidstrom had the better career.

 

[Fugu]

I think Bourque would have taken Lidstroms career and ran away with it, while Lidstrom would never have switched with anybody.

Bourque was the better player but Lidstrom had the better career.

And I personally think you're wrong, and would credit Lidstrom with Lidstrom's career.

 

[tony d]

Bourque
Lidstrom
Coffey
Stevens

 

[Cursed Lemon]

If "better career" is different than "better player", how can Lidstrom not win this?