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

[danincanada]

Bourque was also 2nd in Norris voting and a 1st team All-Star, and Lidstrom was known at the time for occasional defensive lapses.

I don't see how their rookie seasons are comparable.

From what I posted it seems that their rookie seasons were very comparable. Maybe Bourque also wasn't facing the same quality for the Norris? This board does constantly talks about how great the early 90's defenders were. With Potvin being injuried and Fetisov playing in Russia I don't see that same quality in Bourque's rookie season.

The Lidstrom and McCrimmon pairing combined for a +75 so those defensive lapses must have been occasional and not frequent. The Red Wings also went from 76 points to 98 points with the addition of rookies Lidstrom and Konstantinov.

Edit: btw, Bourque was actually 4th in Norris voting behind Robinson, Salming, and Schoenfeld.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Bourque was also 2nd in Norris voting and a 1st team All-Star, and Lidstrom was known at the time for occasional defensive lapses.

I don't see how their rookie seasons are comparable.

Bourque was actually 4th in Norris voting in his rookie year behind Robinson, Salming and a career +60 year from Schoenfeld under a very familiar coach.
He finished ahead of some 80 point scrub named Mark Howe

Bourque was also 19 not 21.
And just to so it's clear, Bourque stepped in as a rookie, played big minutes and led the team by a whopping +15, +52 total.
Also, before it's mentioned in an attempt to detract, Park missed more than half of the season.

Either way, make no mistake, Bourque was regarded as not only one of the best Dmen in the league right off the bat, he was already considered one of the best players in the league. EVERYONE took note of Bourque's arrival.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

From what I posted it seems that their rookie seasons were very comparable. Maybe Bourque also wasn't facing the same quality for the Norris? This board does constantly talks about how great the early 90's defenders were. With Potvin being injuried and Fetisov playing in Russia I don't see that same quality in Bourque's rookie season.

The Lidstrom and McCrimmon pairing combined for a +75 so those defensive lapses must have been occasional and not frequent. The Red Wings also went from 76 points to 98 points with the addition of rookies Lidstrom and Konstantinov.

Edit: btw, Bourque was actually 4th in Norris voting behind Robinson, Salming, and Schoenfeld.

You're right about the Norris voting - one of those strange years when the 1st Team All Star was not top 2 in Norris voting.

And you're right that Lidstrom faced tougher competition as a young defenseman than Bourque did - including a prime version of Bourque himself.

Still, the first time Lidstrom received more than a single 3rd place vote for the Norris (which is basically meaningless) was 1995-96 at the age of 25. At the same age, Bourque was getting his 7th straight top 4 finish in Norris voting.

I remember young Lidstrom's reputation as a soft, offensive defenseman. Some of it was unfair, some of it wasn't.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You're right about the Norris voting - one of those strange years when the 1st Team All Star was not top 2 in Norris voting.

And you're right that Lidstrom faced tougher competition as a young defenseman than Bourque did - including a prime version of Bourque himself.

Still, the first time Lidstrom received more than a single 3rd place vote for the Norris (which is basically meaningless) was 1995-96 at the age of 25. At the same age, Bourque was getting his 7th straight top 4 finish in Norris voting.

I remember young Lidstrom's reputation as a soft, offensive defenseman. Some of it was unfair, some of it wasn't.

Agreed and this is a fair assessment.
Lidstrom had to figure out how to apply his style to the NHL against NHL players and there were some definite growing pains doing so.

 

[danincanada]

You're right about the Norris voting - one of those strange years when the 1st Team All Star was not top 2 in Norris voting.

And you're right that Lidstrom faced tougher competition as a young defenseman than Bourque did - including a prime version of Bourque himself.

Still, the first time Lidstrom received more than a single 3rd place vote for the Norris (which is basically meaningless) was 1995-96 at the age of 25. At the same age, Bourque was getting his 7th straight top 4 finish in Norris voting.

I remember young Lidstrom's reputation as a soft, offensive defenseman. Some of it was unfair, some of it wasn't.

This is fairly accurate although those who called Lidstrom soft early should have probably continued with that narrative throughout his career because his style didn't change much. The problem I've always had is how much does this really matter? Most of us know the heights Lidstrom reached and how long he was at or near the top.

Then we look at Doug Harvey and see that he was actually behind Lidstrom in most of these aspects. He started even later, wasn't an AS until he was 27 and was criticized early on far more than Lidstrom ever was for inconsistent and erratic play. Something doesn't add up here when Lidstrom gets placed behind Bourque for this yet Harvey gets placed in front. I'm not even going to touch on the other non peer to peer stuff right now.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is fairly accurate although those who called Lidstrom soft early should have probably continued with that narrative throughout his career because his style didn't change much. The problem I've always had is how much does this really matter? Most of us know the heights Lidstrom reached and how long he was at or near the top.

Then we look at Doug Harvey and see that he was actually behind Lidstrom in most of these aspects. He started even later, wasn't an AS until he was 27 and was criticized early on far more than Lidstrom ever was for inconsistent and erratic play. Something doesn't add up here when Lidstrom gets placed behind Bourque for this yet Harvey gets placed in front. I'm not even going to touch on the other non peer to peer stuff right now.

Harvey isn't the topic of the thread, but those who place him over Bourque and Lidstrom clearly do because of peak/prime.

 

[danincanada]

Harvey isn't the topic of the thread, but those who place him over Bourque and Lidstrom clearly do because of peak/prime.

Harvey isn't the topic here but that shouldn't stop us from using him as a third comparable between Bourque and Lidstrom. I mean, they are all comparable and it's hard not to see some massive inconsistencies between how the 3 are judged here by many.

I read Harvey's biography recenty and I see even more reasons to doubt that he should be exempt from the same, if not more, criticism than Lidstrom. He was to those Habs teams what Lidstrom was to his Wings but had more blemishes and was criticized far more during his career. It's extremely inconsistent even in an unfair peer to peer comparison.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Harvey isn't the topic here but that shouldn't stop us from using him as a third comparable between Bourque and Lidstrom. I mean, they are all comparable and it's hard not to see some massive inconsistencies between how the 3 are judged here by many.

I read Harvey's biography recenty and I see even more reasons to doubt that he should be exempt from the same, if not more, criticism than Lidstrom. He was to those Habs teams what Lidstrom was to his Wings but had more blemishes and was criticized far more during his career. It's extremely inconsistent even in an unfair peer to peer comparison.

If you want to post about Harvey's blemishes in an appropriate thread (which can be a new thread), please do so.

 

[Hobnobs]

Harvey isn't the topic here but that shouldn't stop us from using him as a third comparable between Bourque and Lidstrom. I mean, they are all comparable and it's hard not to see some massive inconsistencies between how the 3 are judged here by many.

I read Harvey's biography recenty and I see even more reasons to doubt that he should be exempt from the same, if not more, criticism than Lidstrom. He was to those Habs teams what Lidstrom was to his Wings but had more blemishes and was criticized far more during his career. It's extremely inconsistent even in an unfair peer to peer comparison.

I agree with this assessment. Tho tbf Im sure both TDMM and Rhiessan has Bourque and Lidström ranked higher than Harvey.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I agree with this assessment. Tho tbf Im sure both TDMM and Rhiessan has Bourque and Lidström ranked higher than Harvey.

You would assume incorrectly.

 

[danincanada]

I agree with this assessment. Tho tbf Im sure both TDMM and Rhiessan has Bourque and Lidström ranked higher than Harvey.

hehe, not a chance.

 

[Hobnobs]

hehe, not a chance.

Im just pointing out the fallacy in the thread. How one player gets punished for playing on a stacked team, for being soft, for not carrying the puck as much and so on while another gets rewarded for it and another gets rewarded for being a star on a shallow team.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Im just pointing out the fallacy in the thread. How one player gets punished for playing on a stacked team, for being soft, for not carrying the puck as much and so on while another gets rewarded for it and another gets rewarded for being a star on a shallow team.

I don't think there is a fallacy, at least not of the type you seem to see.

And as I said, if you want to compare Harvey to Lidstrom, do so in an appropriate place.

Here's one such appropriate place: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1084719

 

[danincanada]

Im just pointing out the fallacy in the thread. How one player gets punished for playing on a stacked team, for being soft, for not carrying the puck as much and so on while another gets rewarded for it and another gets rewarded for being a star on a shallow team.

Oh I know. Lidstrom and Harvey mirror each other in so many ways but only one is criticized and then Bourque is somehow placed in between. It makes no sense no matter how much people pretend that it does.

If you have a chance, read Harvey's biography. It's a great read but you'll also find yourself giggling at some of the critics of Lidstrom here - many of the same posters who have Harvey at # 2 all-time.

 

[Fugu]

Im just pointing out the fallacy in the thread. How one player gets punished for playing on a stacked team, for being soft, for not carrying the puck as much and so on while another gets rewarded for it and another gets rewarded for being a star on a shallow team.

Oh I know. Lidstrom and Harvey mirror each other in so many ways but only one is criticized and then Bourque is somehow placed in between. It makes no sense no matter how much people pretend that it does.

If you have a chance, read Harvey's biography. It's a great read but you'll also find yourself giggling at some of the critics of Lidstrom here - many of the same posters who have Harvey at # 2 all-time.

Were they both Canadian?

You're right about the Norris voting - one of those strange years when the 1st Team All Star was not top 2 in Norris voting.

And you're right that Lidstrom faced tougher competition as a young defenseman than Bourque did - including a prime version of Bourque himself.

Still, the first time Lidstrom received more than a single 3rd place vote for the Norris (which is basically meaningless) was 1995-96 at the age of 25. At the same age, Bourque was getting his 7th straight top 4 finish in Norris voting.

I remember young Lidstrom's reputation as a soft, offensive defenseman. Some of it was unfair, some of it wasn't.

And this theme keeps coming back, the soft or lack of physical play, so of course, he gets points taken off. What no one addressed is if they believe Lidstrom being more physical would have translated into more Norrises, Cups or other individual awards. I have a hard time seeing that he could have accomplished more in his career regardless, but really-- that measure would be it?

 

[Fugu]

I don't think there is a fallacy, at least not of the type you seem to see.

And as I said, if you want to compare Harvey to Lidstrom, do so in an appropriate place.

Here's one such appropriate place: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1084719

Oh, that should be fun. Can't wait to find some time to dig in.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Im just pointing out the fallacy in the thread. How one player gets punished for playing on a stacked team, for being soft, for not carrying the puck as much and so on while another gets rewarded for it and another gets rewarded for being a star on a shallow team.

Not quite.
Harvey supporters rarely bring up playoff success vs Bourque. We praise Harvey for what he did accomplish(He had some incredible playoffs the years they won), but at the same time, do not detract from Bourque simply because he did not have the same supporting cast.

It is as absurd as simply counting Harvey's cups vs Lidstrom's

For my money, having seen all of them play, yes, I rank Doug Harvey above both. For reasons I specified when asked about Harvey vs Bourque.

Lidstrom supporters here tend to try to detract from Bourque individually because of his lack of team success in Boston, as if it is his fault they did not win and act like Lidstrom could have found a way to improve those bruins teams(Which I find absurd). When in fact, he was amazing in the playoffs and should be praised for how amazing he did play despite the odds.

The fact that a few people have chimed in that Bourque had to go to a stacked team to win a cup is the ultimate joke. The truth is, he finally went to a comparable team to the wings and won.

 

[overg]

Show me where that was apparent, show me where Lidstrom's ES production was Elite?
Lidstrom's first 10 seasons of ES production: 0.33 ESPpG
Lidstrom's last 10 seasons of ES production: 0.32 ESPpG
Chara's ES production during Lidstrom's last 10 seasons: 0.29 ESPpG

I think those are pretty interesting numbers. Is there an easy way to post or track down the same thing for other notable defensemen of the eras? What would be really interesting to see would be how both registered compared to their contemporaries. Seeing a list with guys like Potvin, Coffey, Chelios, Murphy, Leetch, Pronger, Niedermayer, MacInnis, Housley, Zubov, and Green might shed some interesting light on what some of the big guns (both from an "all around" and purely "offensive" perspective) were doing even-strength during the 30-odd years Bourque and Lidstrom were in the league.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think those are pretty interesting numbers. Is there an easy way to post or track down the same thing for other notable defensemen of the eras? What would be really interesting to see would be how both registered compared to their contemporaries. Seeing a list with guys like Potvin, Coffey, Chelios, Murphy, Leetch, Pronger, Niedermayer, MacInnis, Housley, Zubov, and Green might shed some interesting light on what some of the big guns (both from an "all around" and purely "offensive" perspective) were doing even-strength during the 30-odd years Bourque and Lidstrom were in the league.

Hockey reference now gives ES/SH/PP splits going back to the 1960s.

Overpass created a spreadsheet for all expansion seasons, where he adjusts PP/ES/SH points by era, as well as many other things: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1278617

 

[Fugu]

So to catch up:

Actually...puck possession as a team is a defensive concept, not an offensive one.
The goal of being a puck possession is to control the puck more than the other team, thereby limiting their scoring chances and reducing their offensive zone time.
The mantra is if the puck is on our sticks its obviously not going to be on theirs.

Puck possession as an individual has more offensive aspects to it.

You going to back off the defensive concept on your own?

#1...

Originally Posted by Rhiessan71

First, there's a big difference between Detroit played as a team system and the possession game the " Russian Five" played.

No, there isn't, but what is that you imagine this to be?

From the paper you linked, on the Soviet puck possession:

"1. Back-passing and/or carrying the puck back
2. Spreading the defense with one higher than the other
3. Forwards interchanging, accelerating and developing good width
(lanes) and depth (zones)
4. Isolation with eventual support
5. Improvising to “take†whatever the defense is giving
​

Many hockey scholars credit the classic '72 series between the Soviet Union and Canada with introducing more complex neutral zone plays and regroups to the North American hockey scene.

At that time, North American teams were playing a very linear game, with wings staying in their lanes, and centres always in the middle of the ice, much like the old table-hockey games. The Russians were very good at controlling the puck with their defensemen while their forwards skated to openings laterally and diagonally, organizing and executing an attack with all five players. Russian players were encouraged to skate to any area of open ice, unconfined by a coach's declaration to “stay in your laneâ€... In some cases, the Russians would approach the attacking blue line in possession of the puck and turn back to regroup, hoping to form a better attack (Gendron 2003, 78)"
​

This is the essence of the Wings' system for the past couple of decades, with some minor tweaks from Babcock, who switches to dump-ins when the trap is employed. They STILL do this today!

#2
I don't see #5 in this highlight package and if you believe Lidstrom played a possession game anything close to what we're watching there {Mod}.....

I don't think I'm the one having some trouble understanding what the Wings and Lidstrom did. Maybe you should try watching some of their games, because you have now convinced me that you probably haven't watched more than 2-3 games in your entire life. What you have posted flies in the face of reality and what the rest of the hockey world knows about the Red Wings from Bowman onwards.

The YT was meant to explain puck possession to you. It doesn't mean that Lidstrom himself has to be in every clip, but if you really want to waste some time, we could hunt up some examples of Lidstrom imitating Soviet defenders in executing the puck possession, East-West style of play-- synonymous with Wings hockey for two decades now.

#3
Find me a single professional coach, whether a proponent of possession or not, that says puck possession isn't a defensive tool first and foremost.
I will guarantee that you find none. There will be no argument on whether possession is a defensive tool or not, the argument you will find between coaches is whether or not it's the best defensive tool.
Whether it's better to play a possession game or it's better to have your opponent starting from 200' away as often as possible.
Bowman vs Lemaire if you will.

Here's a study I read a few years ago. It's a good read imo.
https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/25542/Thesis Rollins.pdf?sequence=1

Oh, now you want to say it's first and foremost a defensive tool?

I think you're arguing semantics. Puck Possession is a system or belief that says it's easier to hang on to get the puck when you have it -- and to score -- than have to get it back by chasing the other team down. It's also easier to prevent the other team from scoring if you have the puck.


I'll also point out that the researcher is missing the forest for the trees with the origination of attacks from the defensive zone being superior to organized attacks. It's not like one precludes the other. The Wings indeed organized from the defensive zone, aka Lidstrom. If they could keep moving forward, they did. If they couldn't, they regrouped, and preferred East-West movement to prevent defensive and forechecking foci on any one side, because if they could switch play clear across the ice, that would tire and frustrate the pursuers. The did NOT like to dump in. (Funny fact. Hull and Larionov would get benched by the coach for refusing to dump the puck and chase.)

They preferred hanging on to the puck vs chasing and pursuing it. You want to call that a defense first strategy, go for it. It's completely missing the big picture of what the system is designed to do.

 

[Hobnobs]

Not quite.
Harvey supporters rarely bring up playoff success vs Bourque. We praise Harvey for what he did accomplish(He had some incredible playoffs the years they won), but at the same time, do not detract from Bourque simply because he did not have the same supporting cast.

It is as absurd as simply counting Harvey's cups vs Lidstrom's

For my money, having seen all of them play, yes, I rank Doug Harvey above both. For reasons I specified when asked about Harvey vs Bourque.

Lidstrom supporters here tend to try to detract from Bourque individually because of his lack of team success in Boston, as if it is his fault they did not win and act like Lidstrom could have found a way to improve those bruins teams(Which I find absurd). When in fact, he was amazing in the playoffs and should be praised for how amazing he did play despite the odds.

The fact that a few people have chimed in that Bourque had to go to a stacked team to win a cup is the ultimate joke. The truth is, he finally went to a comparable team to the wings and won.

This is not what is being discussed now though. I dont really care what happpened at the beginning of the thread when the "modern players rules"-trolls chimed in.

Im not even saying Lidström was better than Bourque. I just dont like the tune some people have here. Punishing Lidström for every little thing and treating the other two like they were perfect specimens of an NHL defenseman.

 

[overg]

Overpass created a spreadsheet for all expansion seasons, where he adjusts PP/ES/SH points by era, as well as many other things: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/sh....php?t=1278617

Thanks, that's some interesting stuff overpass developed. Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm usually pretty good at following this sort of information when someone else explains it, but sometimes get things confused if left to my own devices), but don't these charts show Lidstrom doing quite well at even strength when adjusted for era? Not as good as Bourque, but way up there? Or am I misinterpreting the charts?

 

[Rhiessan71]

So to catch up:



You going to back off the defensive concept on your own?



No, there isn't, but what is that you imagine this to be?

From the paper you linked, on the Soviet puck possession:

"1. Back-passing and/or carrying the puck back
2. Spreading the defense with one higher than the other
3. Forwards interchanging, accelerating and developing good width
(lanes) and depth (zones)
4. Isolation with eventual support
5. Improvising to “take” whatever the defense is giving
​

Many hockey scholars credit the classic '72 series between the Soviet Union and Canada with introducing more complex neutral zone plays and regroups to the North American hockey scene.

At that time, North American teams were playing a very linear game, with wings staying in their lanes, and centres always in the middle of the ice, much like the old table-hockey games. The Russians were very good at controlling the puck with their defensemen while their forwards skated to openings laterally and diagonally, organizing and executing an attack with all five players. Russian players were encouraged to skate to any area of open ice, unconfined by a coach's declaration to “stay in your lane”... In some cases, the Russians would approach the attacking blue line in possession of the puck and turn back to regroup, hoping to form a better attack (Gendron 2003, 78)"
​

This is the essence of the Wings' system for the past couple of decades, with some minor tweaks from Babcock, who switches to dump-ins when the trap is employed. They STILL do this today!



I don't think I'm the one having some trouble understanding what the Wings and Lidstrom did. Maybe you should try watching some of their games, because you have now convinced me that you probably haven't watched more than 2-3 games in your entire life. What you have posted flies in the face of reality and what the rest of the hockey world knows about the Red Wings from Bowman onwards.

The YT was meant to explain puck possession to you. It doesn't mean that Lidstrom himself has to be in every clip, but if you really want to waste some time, we could hunt up some examples of Lidstrom imitating Soviet defenders in executing the puck possession, East-West style of play-- synonymous with Wings hockey for two decades now.

Look, if the possession game the Wings played as a team concept and the possession game the Russain Five played were the same, then why in the hell was there a need to have a Russian Five in the first place.
They are not the same.
The Detroit team concept still ran on a positional system. A Dman was still a Dman and still played positionally as a Dman. A center still played as a center ect ect. It's a possession system just like they play in Chicago today.
The Russian Five and old school Soviet "Unit" style was an open concept possession game that didn't conform to traditional positions.
The only time you really knew that Fetisov/Kasatonov or Fetisov/Konstaninov were actually Dmen was on a faceoff because after that they could be any where.
One minute you have everything normal off a draw and next minute you see Fetisov and Konstantinov on a 2 on 1 while Larionov and Fedorov are playing as Dmen.

Two very different styles of possession. One that's still structured and the other without any structure at all.

And for the purposes of this conversation, Bourque's possession game was more open concept like the Russian Five, Lidstrom's was not.

Oh, now you want to say it's first and foremost a defensive tool?

I think you're arguing semantics. Puck Possession is a system or belief that says it's easier to hang on to get the puck when you have it -- and to score -- than have to get it back by chasing the other team down. It's also easier to prevent the other team from scoring if you have the puck.


I'll also point out that the researcher is missing the forest for the trees with the origination of attacks from the defensive zone being superior to organized attacks. It's not like one precludes the other. The Wings indeed organized from the defensive zone, aka Lidstrom. If they could keep moving forward, they did. If they couldn't, they regrouped, and preferred East-West movement to prevent defensive and forechecking foci on any one side, because if they could switch play clear across the ice, that would tire and frustrate the pursuers. The did NOT like to dump in. (Funny fact. Hull and Larionov would get benched by the coach for refusing to dump the puck and chase.)

They preferred hanging on to the puck vs chasing and pursuing it. You want to call that a defense first strategy, go for it. It's completely missing the big picture of what the system is designed to do.

It is a defensive first system, stop trying to say it isn't and go have a conversation with some professional coaches, please.
It's designed to keep puck possession as much as possible and control the game. To keep the puck off the oppositions sticks, limiting their ability to attack and produce scoring chances.
When the oppositions best players are on the ice, it's designed to make them waste their whole shift chasing the puck. Then when you have more favourable personnel on the ice, you can push the play.
This is and was Bowman's playbook in a nutshell, his bread and butter. Matching lines, lines that had specific jobs against specific opposition lines limiting any advantages and attacking when you had the advantage.
In it's simplest definition, it's keep away with a purpose or purposes.

Please explain to me how any of this doesn't make 100% sense?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks, that's some interesting stuff overpass developed. Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm usually pretty good at following this sort of information when someone else explains it, but sometimes get things confused if left to my own devices), but don't these charts show Lidstrom doing quite well at even strength when adjusted for era? Not as good as Bourque, but way up there? Or am I misinterpreting the charts?

You're pretty much right. Lidstrom's even strength scoring was the weakest part of his game (largely due to the style he played), but it wasn't exactly weak compared to your average defenseman.

 

[Fugu]

Look, if the possession game the Wings played as a team concept and the possession game the Russain Five played were the same, then why in the hell was there a need to have a Russian Five in the first place.
They are not the same.
The Detroit team concept still ran on a positional system. A Dman was still a Dman and still played positionally as a Dman. A center still played as a center ect ect. It's a possession system just like they play in Chicago today.
The Russian Five and old school Soviet "Unit" style was an open concept possession game that didn't conform to traditional positions.
The only time you really knew that Fetisov/Kasatonov or Fetisov/Konstaninov were actually Dmen was on a faceoff because after that they could be any where.
One minute you have everything normal off a draw and next minute you see Fetisov and Konstantinov on a 2 on 1 while Larionov and Fedorov are playing as Dmen.

Two very different styles of possession. One that's still structured and the other without any structure at all.

The ~only~ difference is that the Soviets deployed five-man units, vs the modern style where you have the 3 forwards on a line, and then a defensive pair that may not be the same pair each time.

Both can play the Soviet-inspired puck possession/East-West/Regrouping system.

Wings centers are infamous for having to be two-way forwards, with their centers (like Fedorov, Larionov, Dats, Zetterberg, Yzerman, etc.) acting as a third defender. Even if you watch Datsyuk today, he's the first guy back if a D pinches, and he often is back quickly with the two defenders. Not quite a rover, but definitely very Soviet school in terms of centreman responsibility.

And for the purposes of this conversation, Bourque's possession game was more open concept like the Russian Five, Lidstrom's was not.

I thought you said he was great at individual possession? Who was in on the possessing with him if it was styled after the Soviets-- and how did I miss someone else doing this in Boston before Scotty remolded the Wings?

It is a defensive first system, stop trying to say it isn't and go have a conversation with some professional coaches, please.
It's designed to keep puck possession as much as possible and control the game. To keep the puck off the oppositions sticks, limiting their ability to attack and produce scoring chances.

It's a system and philosophy. This is a semantics argument from you. It is designed to keep possession and control the game-- and to create opportunities for them. The teams who are very good at it spend far more time in their offensive zone than back, but sure, if you insist that's a defensive strategy-- the best defense is offense, well, okay.

When the oppositions best players are on the ice, it's designed to make them waste their whole shift chasing the puck. Then when you have more favourable personnel on the ice, you can push the play.
This is and was Bowman's playbook in a nutshell, his bread and butter. Matching lines, lines that had specific jobs against specific opposition lines limiting any advantages and attacking when you had the advantage.
In it's simplest definition, it's keep away with a purpose or purposes.

Please explain to me how any of this doesn't make 100% sense?

And that attack, when they had the advantage, wasn't styled on N-S or dump-in play, but on keeping the puck. The Wings are quite infamous for their East-West style. How is this new to you?