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

[Killion]

Have you seen his greatest player rankings?

Aye. Of course.. Strange Brew it be: www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnrp6o966pA

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Aye. Of course.. Strange Brew it be: www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnrp6o966pA

Indeed. As a Habs fan I have a lot of respect for Bowman but his take individual players just seems to me to be.....bizarre shall we say

 

[Killion]

Indeed. As a Habs fan I have a lot of respect for Bowman but his take individual players just seems to me to be.....bizarre shall we say

I assume he's thinking is in~game but absent gravity, on Planet Mars around Ancient Alien Faces or whatever.... he's beyond eccentric, got away with it his entire life. Metal plate. In his head. And ya, quite serious. He has one. Signals from the Gamma Quadrant. Brain damaged.

 

[Hobnobs]

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.

Dave Lewis failed with the wings so it wasnt childs play at all..

 

[danincanada]

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.

I'm pretty sure this quote is in his bio as well. Was this really new though? No defender (Shore) dictated the pace of the game before and no defender was patient with the puck before he passed it up the ice? In his bio it also states a few times that Harvey wasn't the best in the league at rushing the puck from the backend so it's more about playing the puck up to his forwards.

The claims on this board before had more to do with Harvey's defensive play. That he was the first to not chase the puck carrier in his own zone and waited for them to take the puck to the net, where he was waiting for them.

This should be clear to everyone if it's going to be used to point to Harvey being an amazing innovator. What exactly did he innovate that wasn't done before?

 

[danincanada]

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.

So you're basicially saying that's the way it's gotta be without adding any substance to the debate.

Offensively, Bourque outscored Lidstrom but Lidstrom outscored Harvey - both raw and adjusted in both cases. What did Harvey do better than the other two? Was his defensive game that much more superior?

 

[danincanada]

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.

Realistically, Bowman is probably the best person on earth to talk to when comparing Lidstrom and Harvey. He did coach both and was inevitably a Habs fan during Harvey's prime years and followed his career closely because he was a Montrealer and was coaching in their farm system as well. He sounds like a big fan of both and I don't see a bias either way.

 

[Iceman]

A bit late to the party and I know I'm gonna get flamed for saying this but while I think he is a top 5 dman I think Bourque's cup fairy tale is way too highly regarded when evaluating his career.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

A bit late to the party and I know I'm gonna get flamed for saying this but while I think he is a top 5 dman I think Bourque's cup fairy tale is way too highly regarded when evaluating his career.

As far as I can tell nobody is using his "cup fairy tale" to pump Bourque up. Not a flame, just pointing it out as someone who's been following this thread closely.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Dave Lewis failed with the wings so it wasnt childs play at all..

That's an over-statement. He got two years, won 48 games in each (pre-shootout), but had two playoffs where he ran into Kiprusoff, who was arguably the best goaltender in the world at the time, and Giguere, who was playing like it. Bowman and Babcock didn't start much hotter than that, if you'll recall. Hell, they all dropped their first series with the team after a 46/48/58-win season to an 18/15/29-point underdog.

 

[Wrath]

A bit late to the party and I know I'm gonna get flamed for saying this but while I think he is a top 5 dman I think Bourque's cup fairy tale is way too highly regarded when evaluating his career.

If anything people don't even give Bourque enough credit for his one cup in Colorado....

I haven't even seen anybody mention Bourque's cup as a positive for him. Meanwhile Lidstrom gets plenty of praise for his playoff performance (and rightfully so).

To me Bourque's only cup and his contributing performance towards that cup is more important than say.... Scott Niedermeyer's first two cups, even though Niedermeyer gets the "career winner" label and people project his peak/prime (mid 00's) to his problematic early years.

In fact Bourque in 01 might have been more important to the Avs cup effort than Lidstrom in either 97 or 98 (but obviously not 02, and almost definitely not 08).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If anything people don't even give Bourque enough credit for his one cup in Colorado....

I haven't even seen anybody mention Bourque's cup as a positive for him. Meanwhile Lidstrom gets plenty of praise for his playoff performance (and rightfully so).

To me Bourque's only cup and his contributing performance towards that cup is more important than say.... Scott Niedermeyer's first two cups, even though Niedermeyer gets the "career winner" label and people project his peak/prime (mid 00's) to his problematic early years.

In fact Bourque in 01 might have been more important to the Avs cup effort than Lidstrom in either 97 or 98 (but obviously not 02, and almost definitely not 08).

My first thought is that Lidstrom in 98 > Bourque in 01 > Lidstrom in 97.

But you're right, all of them are more important than Niedermayer in 95 or 00.

 

[Iceman]

As far as I can tell nobody is using his "cup fairy tale" to pump Bourque up. Not a flame, just pointing it out as someone who's been following this thread closely.

Maybe not in this thread but in general. I have always felt that his cup victory is over-glorified and seems to be such a big part of the evaluation of his career making it very tough for me to put him that much ahead of Lidström to be honest.

 

[Iceman]

If anything people don't even give Bourque enough credit for his one cup in Colorado....

I haven't even seen anybody mention Bourque's cup as a positive for him. Meanwhile Lidstrom gets plenty of praise for his playoff performance (and rightfully so).

To me Bourque's only cup and his contributing performance towards that cup is more important than say.... Scott Niedermeyer's first two cups, even though Niedermeyer gets the "career winner" label and people project his peak/prime (mid 00's) to his problematic early years.

In fact Bourque in 01 might have been more important to the Avs cup effort than Lidstrom in either 97 or 98 (but obviously not 02, and almost definitely not 08).

Not neglecting Bourque's playoff performance with the Avalanches at all. Just that I've always felt that it puts too much icing on the cake.

 

[The Panther]

Maybe not in this thread but in general. I have always felt that his cup victory is over-glorified and seems to be such a big part of the evaluation of his career making it very tough for me to put him that much ahead of Lidström to be honest.

Dude, Bourque was generally considered one of the greatest D-men of all time about a dozen years before he ever won the Cup.

 

[habsfanatics*]

Bourque would still be in my top 5 based on his Boston career alone.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Maybe not in this thread but in general. I have always felt that his cup victory is over-glorified and seems to be such a big part of the evaluation of his career making it very tough for me to put him that much ahead of Lidström to be honest.

Hmm... I don't know that you're correct here. Remember when THN did that big Top 100 list that CBC aired on All-Star Weekend in 1998? He was 14th, sandwiched between Plante and Morenz. He was considered one of the best of all-time well before the 2001 Stanley Cup.

I mean, that's why it was such a big deal that they won that year: Ray Bourque was far-and-away the best and most popular NHL player to never win. It was the storybook ending, and people really enjoyed it, but don't mistake that for being more than a footnote in "the evaluation of his career," because his place in history was set in stone years earlier.

 

[Rhiessan71]

As long as we're putting all this stock in what Bowman says...

Interview May 31 2012

http://www.si.com/nhl/home-ice/2012/05/31/was-nick-lidstrom-mvp-of-his-era

And how does Scotty rank him all-time? Right in there with the best who have ever played the game.

"You gotta go Bobby Orr first. He changed the game," Bowman said. "He was an offensive machine. No one will ever play like Bobby Orr again. His sheer speed -- there's never been a skater like that. He only played 10 years and we're still talking about him. And then, I think Doug Harvey who, in his era of the '50s and early '60s,' he really controlled the game. Then there's a few guys I'd rank Nick with. Denis Potvin, Ray Bourque. A guy who is really underrated, played kind of mistake free -- he was like Nick -- was Serge Savard.

Pretty clear what Bowman thinks eh.

Credit to the original poster Quoipourquoi
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=50581077&postcount=143

 

[Fugu]

As long as we're putting all this stock in what Bowman says...

Interview May 31 2012

http://www.si.com/nhl/home-ice/2012/05/31/was-nick-lidstrom-mvp-of-his-era



Pretty clear what Bowman thinks eh.

Credit to the original poster Quoipourquoi
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=50581077&postcount=143

That's still pretty reasonable, ranks two guys as the clearly dominant (in terms of his assessment of their ability, no counting of awards, Cups, etc.).

Orr
Harvey
Lidstrom/Bourque/Potvin/Savard(?)


That's a respectable grouping.

 

[danincanada]

That's still pretty reasonable, ranks two guys as the clearly dominant (in terms of his assessment of their ability, no counting of awards, Cups, etc.).

Orr
Harvey
Lidstrom/Bourque/Potvin/Savard(?)

That's a respectable grouping.

Yup, and in that article Ray Ferraro repeats what you've stated earlier:

TSN's Ray Ferraro played against Lidstrom in 12 of his 18 NHL seasons and added, "When I think of Lidstrom, I think of a great player that had the puck on his stick less than any other great player I had a chance to play against. His efficiency at moving the puck at the right time to the right player in the right place on the ice was unmatched. When I think of the greatness of Lidstrom, I think of that; that the game wasn't easy for him, but he made it appear easy because his decision-making was far superior to most players that I ever played against....The one thing I always found playing against Lidstrom is that when you thought you had him in a corner, had him in a bad spot, it was one simple pass, one quick movement and out of the zone the Red Wings go. As much as the Red Wings score, the wheel of their offense has always been Nick Lidstrom."

The team has missed his transition game sorely ever since he retired. He was defense-first but even Wings fans didn't realize how much that was about to change after his last game.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Dude, Bourque was generally considered one of the greatest D-men of all time about a dozen years before he ever won the Cup.

sure Raymond was highly regarded at 28 and 29 and who knows how he would have finished on any all time Dman list but I highly doubt his 10-11 years and 3 Norris would have propelled him in the top 10 (given how this board tends to vote, but one never knows I guess).

Pure speculation and pretty much impossible for people to remove post age 28 and 29 Ray from what he had accomplished up to that point, ie his best regular season and playoff performances were probably still ahead at aged 30,31 and the Colorado rebirth.

 

[Hobnobs]

That's an over-statement. He got two years, won 48 games in each (pre-shootout), but had two playoffs where he ran into Kiprusoff, who was arguably the best goaltender in the world at the time, and Giguere, who was playing like it. Bowman and Babcock didn't start much hotter than that, if you'll recall. Hell, they all dropped their first series with the team after a 46/48/58-win season to an 18/15/29-point underdog.

Maybe failed is an overstatement but then what is calling it "childs play"?

 

[Rhiessan71]

That's still pretty reasonable, ranks two guys as the clearly dominant (in terms of his assessment of their ability, no counting of awards, Cups, etc.).

Orr
Harvey
Lidstrom/Bourque/Potvin/Savard(?)


That's a respectable grouping.

And you all realise that I could have presented this interview a couple of days ago but waited to see just how much of your feet you could get in your mouthes before actually having to eat 'em.
:wink:

 

[danincanada]

And you all realise that I could have presented this interview a couple of days ago but waited to see just how much of your feet you could get in your mouthes before actually having to eat 'em.
:wink:

You know you're incredibly into this when you start plotting when to post things. Jeez.

The only problem is if you want to use this quote Bowman also says Lidstrom and Bourque are on the same level. You agree with that, too?

Bowman is probably doing a peer to peer comparison here like you do. Notice how he mentions "in his era of the 50's and early 60's". In the other quote we have from Bowman in this comparison he catches himself before he comments, "It's hard to compare them in a way because they played in vastly different eras." Then goes on to speak about all the similarities between the two and won't pick one over the other.

Seriously, how can some posters here not admit that's it's unfair to use peer to peer to compare a player from today's fully integrated league, after hockey has spread to far more regions and people, with a player from an all-Canadian league? You wouldn't do that in any other circumstance but it's like it's too late to change your ways now without losing face.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You know you're incredibly into this when you start plotting when to post things. Jeez.

The only problem is if you want to use this quote Bowman also says Lidstrom and Bourque are on the same level. You agree with that, too?

Bowman is probably doing a peer to peer comparison here like you do. Notice how he mentions "in his era of the 50's and early 60's". In the other quote we have from Bowman in this comparison he catches himself before he comments, "It's hard to compare them in a way because they played in vastly different eras." Then goes on to speak about all the similarities between the two and won't pick one over the other.

Seriously, how can some posters here not admit that's it's unfair to use peer to peer to compare a player from today's fully integrated league, after hockey has spread to far more regions and people, with a player from an all-Canadian league? You wouldn't do that in any other circumstance but it's like it's too late to change your ways now without losing face.

Lidstrom, Bourque, and Potvin. He mentions Savard but then mentions he is "underrated," which reading between the lines, shows me that Bowman wants to give his guy credit not that he necessarily objectively thinks he is on their level.

I've noticed that hockey guys rate players more on how good they saw them as, rather than how long they were that good. This board would say Bourque > Lidstrom > Potvin based on how long each was at his best, but when coaches and the like rank players, I don't think length of prime is as big a consideration.

I mean, this is giving Bowman all the credit for how he ranks players... when he created a list of his top Canadian players of all time a couple years ago, it was kind of strange.