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

[danincanada]

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.

I don't understand what your beef is with this. Lidstrom fit this system like a glove because he controlled the play and was extremely patient and poised so he didn't take risks or make mistakes. The results speak for themself; 900 regular season wins in his career, which is apparently the most of any skater all-time, 4 Stanley Cups, 6 trips to the Finals, never misssed the playoffs. What exactly is the problem?

Lidstrom had the hockey IQ to pull this off and was a coaches dream. In your opinion he didn't take enough risks or carry the puck himself enough though? What's that old adage? "The puck moves faster than any skater."

The most perplexing of all is that moving the puck like this exactly what Bowman praised Harvey for - a player I've never seen you criticize this way:

"It's hard to compare them in a way because they played in vastly different eras. I coached Harvey in St. Louis before Nick Lidstrom was born," Bowman told ESPN.com last week. "But the two most common denominators between those two was that it was very seldom either one got caught up ice. Their passing skills were so terrific. Their first pass.

"If you charted a hockey game and you wrote down where the puck went every time those two touched it, it usually went on another teammate's stick unless they were killing a penalty. Their positioning and that sixth sense to be aware of what's going on ... they made a lot of partners looked pretty good."

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/2508/scotty-bowman-on-those-lidstrom-harvey-comparisons

 

[Big Phil]

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.

Pretty much. You'd think Bourque was Phil Housley in the postseason the way people are talking about him.

 

[Fugu]

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 isn't true, DS.

Bourque did go to a comparable team, and won. Lidstrom and Harvey only ever played for their [great] teams, but Lidstrom played with two disparate rosters on the Wings, and under different coaches. The 2007, 08 and 09 Wings could have won a Cup in each of those years, losing in 09 in game 7, with many of them on a stretcher. Lidstrom's manhood/family jewels were being kept together by stitches, and iced between periods.

The Ducks got barely past them in 07 in the Conference final.

What's absurd though about thinking that if Lidstrom or Harvey had played for Bourque's Bruins that they might not still have been elite, just without the team hardware? I don't think that's absurd to consider given the names being tossed about, but also something we can't prove because it never happened. You can't then give Bourque extra points because the other two never faced his situation. I think what posters who comment should do though is decide how much stock they truly want to put into the "team awards" when they have these discussions. All great players find a way to win is often the rallying cry! Well.....stop moving the goal posts.

It's either a critical factor in a team sport, or opportunity should be considered in every context.

 

[The Panther]

It's either a critical factor in a team sport, or opportunity should be considered in every context.

No, nothing is either/or.

Winning is a consideration. Opportunity should always be considered in evaluating individuals in a team-sport.

If two given players, of similar eras, played on similarly powerful (regular season) teams, in evenly-balanced conferences, and one of those players won 3 Cups and went to the Finals 5 times, whereas the other made it to the Conference Final once and never won the Cup, then the winning becomes a BIG consideration (but obviously still a consideration). [Example off the top of my head -- maybe Denis Savard and Kent Nilsson]

But in the other extreme -- where two players of similar talent/ability play for completely unequal teams and, accordingly, one has playoff success and one doesn't -- winning becomes a lesser consideration. [Example -- Guy Lafleur and Marcel Dionne]

There is not 'either/or' hardline.

 

[Fugu]

No, nothing is either/or.

Winning is a consideration. Opportunity should always be considered in evaluating individuals in a team-sport.

If two given players, of similar eras, played on similarly powerful (regular season) teams, in evenly-balanced conferences, and one of those players won 3 Cups and went to the Finals 5 times, whereas the other made it to the Conference Final once and never won the Cup, then the winning becomes a BIG consideration (but obviously still a consideration). [Example off the top of my head -- maybe Denis Savard and Kent Nilsson]

But in the other extreme -- where two players of similar talent/ability play for completely unequal teams and, accordingly, one has playoff success and one doesn't -- winning becomes a lesser consideration. [Example -- Guy Lafleur and Marcel Dionne]

There is not 'either/or' hardline.

Except that Harvey is treated differently in comparison to Bourque, while Lidstrom is discounted against both.

I cannot find any metrics that people are using that hold water throughout.

Mind you, I started watching hockey when Orr was at his peak, and I know it's not the same game, has shifted and changed many times.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Except that Harvey is treated differently in comparison to Bourque, while Lidstrom is discounted against both.

I cannot find any metrics that people are using that hold water throughout.

Mind you, I started watching hockey when Orr was at his peak, and I know it's not the same game, has shifted and changed many times.

You know one thing that hasn't changed in 60 years?
The way Dmen are trained and taught to play their position.

There's not much separating Harvey, Bourque and Lidstrom. Harvey being the guy through the wall that changed the game and revolutionized completely the way Dmen play their position and STILL play it to this day is the game breaker for me and always will be.

MOD

 

[danincanada]

You know one thing that hasn't changed in 60 years?
The way Dmen are trained and taught to play their position.

There's not much separating Harvey, Bourque and Lidstrom. Harvey being the guy through the wall that changed the game and revolutionized completely the way Dmen play their position and STILL play it to this day is the game breaker for me and always will be.

I recently read Harvey's biography I don't recall his defensive positioning or revolutionizing of the position being a big part of the story. It was more about his ability to be patient for the breakout pass, often skating in front of his own net which drove the old school coaches crazy. It does obviously touch on Harvey being great defensively but not in the same revolutionary way you always bring up. Is there another source that touches on this more?

 

[Rhiessan71]

I recently read Harvey's biography I don't recall his defensive positioning or revolutionizing of the position being a big part of the story. It was more about his ability to be patient for the breakout pass, often skating in front of his own net which drove the old school coaches crazy. It does obviously touch on Harvey being great defensively but not in the same revolutionary way you always bring up. Is there another source that touches on this more?

Google is your friend, shouldn't take you long.

On another note...you have been arguing against Harvey for how long now? Like a couple of years and you are just now researching him...ummm...alright then

 

[danincanada]

Google is your friend, shouldn't take you long.

On another note...you have been arguing against Harvey for how long now? Like a couple of years and you are just now researching him...ummm...alright then

Not as long as you've been bashing Lidstrom, that's for sure.

I've had his book for years but finally got around to reading it. Please forgive me.

I found it odd that in his biography it wasn't mentioned much and there weren't a lot of details about how he changed the game. I mean, you talk about it all the time so you'd think it would be in the man's bio.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Chill out with the personal stuff or you'll be removed from this thread.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Not as long as you've been bashing Lidstrom, that's for sure.

I've had his book for years but finally got around to reading it. Please forgive me.

I found it odd that in his biography it wasn't mentioned much and there weren't a lot of details about how he changed the game. I mean, you talk about it all the time so you'd think it would be in the man's bio.

How about his HHoF Legends bio, then?

After debuting in a 2-1 loss to the Rangers on October 16, 1947, coach Dick Irvin very quickly discovered Harvey's greatest skill – the ability to control the temp of a game. Methodically, Doug carried the puck, at his own speed, surveying the ice landscape before he committed to any play. At first, it drove his coach and teammates to distraction, until they learned that there was method to Harvey's madness – the other team couldn't score if Doug controlled the puck. "I'm not throwing any pucks away," he said. "I'm trying to do what's best for the team. That's why I take my time and make the play."

Gotta assume that has a lot to do with it. Gotta think, from a history of high-producing rovers and centres, it had to be a pretty big thing to have a defenseman capable of not only carrying and maintaining the puck like that, but effectively dictating the pace and flow of play that well.

 

[Fugu]

How about his HHoF Legends bio, then?

Gotta assume that has a lot to do with it. Gotta think, from a history of high-producing rovers and centres, it had to be a pretty big thing to have a defenseman capable of not only carrying and maintaining the puck like that, but effectively dictating the pace and flow of play that well.

Yes, but does that coach or link have more credibility than Scotty Bowman:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl--re...o-the-end.html

"He and Doug Harvey were very similar," said the legendary Scotty Bowman, who coached both. "The way that they could play the offensive blue line was just incredible – mistake-free most games, keeping the puck in, starting plays. They controlled the play."

I don't think it's contested that Harvey could do these things, but that Lidstrom did these things. Why would Bowman pick Harvey as the Lidstrom comparable?

 

[Killion]

Why would Bowman pick Harvey as the Lidstrom comparable?

Because he was forced into it, thats why. There is no "comparison" between a Doug Harvey & a Nikky Lidstrom on the ice. Period.... remember as well, Bowman the Younger (St.Louis) & the Elder (Detroit) two completely different individuals. He never saw nor Coached Doug Harvey in his Prime. Doesnt know what the Hell he's talking about. But I suppose because its "Scotty" its brilliant, an epiphany yes? Look, great Coach, but that, way over the line. He doest know. Bowman is not Jesus Christ.

 

[habsfanatics*]

Yes, but does that coach or link have more credibility than Scotty Bowman:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl--re...o-the-end.html



I don't think it's contested that Harvey could do these things, but that Lidstrom did these things. Why would Bowman pick Harvey as the Lidstrom comparable?

Because he coached them both.

Because he was forced into it, thats why. There is no "comparison" between a Doug Harvey & a Nikky Lidstrom on the ice. Period.... remember as well, Bowman the Younger (St.Louis) & the Elder (Detroit) two completely different individuals. He never saw nor Coached Doug Harvey in his Prime. Doesnt know what the Hell he's talking about. But I suppose because its "Scotty" its brilliant, an epiphany yes? Look, great Coach, but that, way over the line. He doest know. Bowman is not Jesus Christ.

This, too.

 

[Fugu]

Because he was forced into it, thats why. There is no "comparison" between a Doug Harvey & a Nikky Lidstrom on the ice. Period.... remember as well, Bowman the Younger (St.Louis) & the Elder (Detroit) two completely different individuals. He never saw nor Coached Doug Harvey in his Prime. Doesnt know what the Hell he's talking about. But I suppose because its "Scotty" its brilliant, an epiphany yes? Look, great Coach, but that, way over the line. He doest know. Bowman is not Jesus Christ.

Bowman was from Montreal, played hockey in the minors, and then was coaching by the late 1950s.

I believe he would have seen plenty of Harvey in his prime, and finally as an NHL coach.

 

[Killion]

I believe he would have seen plenty of Harvey in his prime, and finally as an NHL coach.

I see. And so a young Scotty Bowman who was favored by Toe Blake & Sammy Pollock for his enthusiasm more than genius would understand the ramifications of a player like Doug Harvey in real~time?................ Dont think so........... Just as I dont think people appreciate & understand the ramifications of Nik Lidstrom. It will take years for most of the hockey intelligentsia to "get it". Ive been on this ride before. Seen it first hand. Takes time. Years, sometimes decades.

 

[Fugu]

I see. And so a young Scotty Bowman who was favored by Toe Blake & Sammy Pollock for his enthusiasm more than genius would understand the ramifications of a player like Doug Harvey in real~time?................ Dont think so........... Just as I dont think people appreciate & understand the ramifications of Nik Lidstrom. It will take years for most of the hockey intelligentsia to "get it". Ive been on this ride before. Seen it first hand. Takes time. Years, sometimes decades.

Scotty would have the experience of having seen Harvey play during Bowman's formative years. Moreover, Bowman wasn't just a casual fan, but a player and [apparently] a student of the game. Maybe he didn't know when he was 17, 18 or 20 yrs old that he was a student of the game, but given how his career evolved, it's probably safe to say that he certainly was taking it all in and processing.

Why is it so hard to believe that as a coach, say 15-20 yrs in the future, and then as the coach of one of the greatest Habs teams, and further on, and finally with the Wings that he could process everything he'd seen and learned and tell us how he sees it all stacking up?

I haven't seen anyone dismissing the other eye witness accounts of Harvey mentioned earlier in this thread, but Bowman's is somehow questionable? The man lived through it all, and his record is, well, somewhat unique in the NHL in its own right.

 

[Killion]

Scotty would have the experience of having seen Harvey play during Bowman's formative years. Moreover, Bowman wasn't just a casual fan, but a player and [apparently] a student of the game. Maybe he didn't know when he was 17, 18 or 20 yrs old that he was a student of the game, but given how his career evolved, it's probably safe to say that he certainly was taking it all in and processing.

Why is it so hard to believe that as a coach, say 15-20 yrs in the future, and then as the coach of one of the greatest Habs teams, and further on, and finally with the Wings that he could process everything he'd seen and learned and tell us how he sees it all stacking up?

I haven't seen anyone dismissing the other eye witness accounts of Harvey mentioned earlier in this thread, but Bowman's is somehow questionable? The man lived through it all, and his record is, well, somewhat unique in the NHL in its own right.

Scotty Bowman was a promising Junior Player who got nailed. Put. Out. Of. Action. Career over. Small to begin with & wasnt going Big League, to The Show. During the era that Doug Harvey Ruled. Does that mean he knew EXACTLY what was going on? I dont thnk so.... I think Scotty Bowman's sailed through life on Love & Luck. To ascribe Genius to the man a Misnomer. Passion? Absolutely. And theres a Difference. Subtle but Succinct. Unlike most, Im afraid I just dont hold him in the same Reverential Regard. He was "lucky" more than bright bulb shining. The only real Respect for him that I have as a hockey intellect is what he accomplished in St.Louis.

 

[Fugu]

Scotty Bowman was a promising Junior Player who got nailed. Put. Out. Of. Action. Career over. Small to begin with & wasnt going Big League, to The Show. During the era that Doug Harvey Ruled. Does that mean he knew EXACTLY what was going on? I dont thnk so.... I think Scotty Bowman's sailed through life on Love & Luck. To ascribe Genius to the man a Misnomer. Passion? Absolutely. And theres a Difference. Subtle but Succinct. Unlike most, Im afraid I just dont hold him in the same Reverential Regard. He was "lucky" more than bright bulb shining. The only real Respect for him that I have as a hockey intellect is what he accomplished in St.Louis.

I disagree. His Canadiens faced the Soviet Red Army team and it was Bowman's adjustments and preparation of his team that was impressive, plus he was one of the first to 'get it' in what the Soviets had developed and started incorporating that into his own coaching. Lemaire was a good student of the game, probably picked up a few things from Scotty and that time as well.

 

[Killion]

I disagree. His Canadiens faced the Soviet Red Army team and it was Bowman's adjustments and preparation of his team that was impressive, plus he was one of the first to 'get it' in what the Soviets had developed and started incorporating that into his own coaching. Lemaire was a good student of the game, probably picked up a few things from Scotty and that time as well.

Fine. In terms of "Greatest Coaches All Time" statistically Bowman Top O' the World Ma. But he's not my Cup of Tea.... My brain goes into overdrive thinking about Toe Blake, Dick Irvin Sr. & the likes of Art Ross. Scotty was lucky. Only decent mind in a vacant field & who was indulged by Pollock. Look at what he quite literally inherited in Montreal? Ha?... how do you screw that up?... and of course confidence once born, the Red Wing = Childs Play.

 

[Big Phil]

I don't think it's contested that Harvey could do these things, but that Lidstrom did these things. Why would Bowman pick Harvey as the Lidstrom comparable?

Because between Bourque, Harvey and Lidstrom there isn't a lot of space, but ones that have seen Bourque and Lidstrom's entire career usually pick Bourque because they can see the differences. Same with Harvey. It isn't that he's miles ahead of Lidstrom, it is just that someone as to have done things better than the other one. Usually Harvey is picked for this. Lidstrom, even taking his subtly into account didn't stand out like the first two.

 

[Killion]

Why would Bowman pick Harvey as the Lidstrom comparable?

Young Scotty / Old & Almost Despondent Doug Harvey. A Shell of his former self. How would he even know in St.Louis circa 67/68? He wouldnt have a clue what he was dealing with. Harvey by that time & era a different Man & person outside of any realm of Bowmans experiences with life. Frankly I find any comparison to Lidstrom some 30yrs later absurd & revisionist at best. Scotty Bowman didnt "get" Doug Harvey circa 67/68.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Yes, but does that coach or link have more credibility than Scotty Bowman:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl--re...o-the-end.html



I don't think it's contested that Harvey could do these things, but that Lidstrom did these things. Why would Bowman pick Harvey as the Lidstrom comparable?

I don't get your point. What does Lidstrom have to do with details of how Harvey "revolutionized the position", other than being described as similar in a later generation? Don't think that's what danincanada was looking for.

 

[Killion]

I don't get your point. What does Lidstrom have to do with details of how Harvey "revolutionized the position", other than being described as similar in a later generation? Don't think that's what danincanada was looking for.

Who knows Ohashi. Perhaps that Lidstrom "redefined the way one could play defence"?... Honestly, no idea. Ive never been a Scotty Bowman "Believer" per se' & really dont put a lot of stock in his remonstrations. Over~hyped Coach & Brainzoid.... and guess what? Im not impressed.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Who knows Ohashi. Perhaps that Lidstrom "redefined the way one could play defence"?... Honestly, no idea. Ive never been a Scotty Bowman "Believer" per se' & really dont put a lot of stock in his remonstrations. Over~hyped Coach & Brainzoid.... and guess what? Im not impressed.

Have you seen his greatest player rankings?