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

Iceman

Registered User
Jun 9, 2014
10,640
2,024
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.

Yeah, that's true. His legacy is still what it is but I never thought the cup was such a big deal as some people do but hey, he deserved it at least. :)
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
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.


How did you come to that conclusion? :huh:
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
How did you come to that conclusion? :huh:

The full quote:

"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. Didn't make a lot of rushes, stayed home, played errorless games. Larry Robinson was a different player. He was more a chance taker, would play more physical, could play up and back, he would go up. Paul Coffey was also a different type of player. He was all offense. These were the best."

"Then there's a few guys I'd rank Nick with. Denis Potvin, Ray Bourque."

PERIOD.

"A guy who is really underrated.... Serge Savard."

PERIOD

"Larry Robinson and Paul Coffey were different types of players."

He's speaking stream of consciousness in that interview. He's also gone out of his way to give props to Serge Savard before, who seems to have been a coach's dream while not putting up the biggest offensive numbers.

Anyway, this is my interpretation.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
^^^ Sure. Taking the quote in totality, he's ranking Orr #1, Harvey #2 and then a grouping of players at #3's. Bourque, Coffey, Savard, Lidstrom etc. A "Collection" of Great Players in the number three classification. Least ways thats how Im reading it. And yes, Bowmans ratings & rankings of several years back "Interesting" to say the least.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
The full quote:



"Then there's a few guys I'd rank Nick with. Denis Potvin, Ray Bourque."

PERIOD.

"A guy who is really underrated.... Serge Savard."

PERIOD

"Larry Robinson and Paul Coffey were different types of players."

He's speaking stream of consciousness in that interview. He's also gone out of his way to give props to Serge Savard before, who seems to have been a coach's dream while not putting up the biggest offensive numbers.

Anyway, this is my interpretation.

^^^ Sure. Taking the quote in totality, he's ranking Orr #1, Harvey #2 and then a grouping of players at #3's. Bourque, Coffey, Savard, Lidstrom etc. A "Collection" of Great Players in the number three classification. Least ways thats how Im reading it. And yes, Bowmans ratings & rankings of several years back "Interesting" to say the least.


That's what I said too, after that quote. I thought TDMM was saying something else, about Lidstrom not being in that third grouping.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
Ok, finally I have enough time to do this...

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.

It's NOT the same and I have already explained it once and everything I said was completely ignored and completely un-countered.
The possession game the Wings play (and Hawks today) is an adaptation of some of the European Unit possession play philosophies onto the more rigid North American positional play.
The system the Wings played as a team was still based on the concept of lw/c/rw/ld/rd (they each had their own zones on the ice) with either the center or right wing being the biggest moving part while the left wing or center was responsible for a Dman, if he left his "zone" to attack.
And Lidstrom at even strength rarely attacked and if he did he usually did so as the 4th player/trailer or if he was actually the one that gained the offensive zone, he slowed up and re-establised his left Dman position.

The Russian five/Green unit didn't follow positions at all except on a faceoff. It was just one big cycle with no zone or positional restrictions. It's about getting to open ice no matter where it was and moving the puck there.
Both Dmen leading an attack with the leftwinger while the center and rightwinger played a Dmen was a common occurrence.
There's even a great video out there of them passing the puck all around and moving so much that the end result is a 2 on 1 with Fetisov and Konstantinov.


And AGAIN, easy question...if what the Russian Five played and what the Wings played as a team were the same, then why was there even a need or want to have the Russian Five in the first place.
The only thing that was the same was the idea of maintaining the puck on their sticks, after that, it was a completely whole other ballgame.
If it wasn't, then there would be absolutely no reason to have a video or videos of them doing it. You could just 10 minutes of any Wings game and show that.

Sorry, Lidstrom wasn't the strongest possession guy. He played well in a possession system giving and receiving passes.
No, Lidstrom's strongest asset for Detroit was in transition, not possession.
Dan even mentioned a quote from Ray Ferraro (who's still a tool btw) that actually got it right for a change. Lidstrom was a very good wheel for them. He got the puck out of the zone and up to his forwards smartly and safely.
Lidstrom at his best would defuse a defensive situation and then quickly move the puck out of the zone tape to tape to a forward. Playing with the puck was NOT his game and never was.


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?

He was and the best example today is watching Karlsson. Watch how much the puck is actually on his stick, Bourque was the same way and it's a hell of a lot more than the puck was on Lidstrom's stick.
Bourque would move up the ice, he would use give and goes and trade off with other positions as he did it. He was playing open concept while the rest of his team would still play positionally.
If he didn't think something was going to work, he peeled back, made back passes and started all over again meanwhile controlling the puck and the game almost on his own. In his prime, it was a thing of beauty to watch (or as a Habs fans, it was a freaking nightmare) and Harvey did it even better.

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.

It's not semantics. It's understanding and not understanding and if you honestly take a minute to actually think about what I'm saying here, you will understand why Bowman, a bigtime line matcher and defensive first coach, was such a proponent of a possession system. A system that allows you to get the very most out of those line matches.
J. Martin is known as one of the foremost and stuffiest defensive first coaches around and you know what system he prefers? Do you need 3 guesses? That's right, puck possesssion.


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?

They didn't always attack. If something wasn't looking good, they retreated with the puck instead of dumping it in. Some coaches advocate dumping the puck in at that point instead of retreating. The idea being to make them attack you from 200'. With puck possession the idea is they don't get to attack you at all.
When the Wings had a lead, were they attacking? No, they were not! They kept puck possession as much as possible controlling the game and controlling the clock.

I seriously IMPLORE you to sit down/email/twitter/something with some professional coaches that can set you straight as obviously you're not going to take my opinion on it.


Also, I'm a Habs fan, I absolutely detest the Bruins and was physically ill when they hoisted the Cup. I hated Bourque with a passion but I damned well had to respect him. Unlike quite a few in this thread (Wings fans trying to prop up their boy) I have no horse in this race.
I used to have Potvin ahead of Lidstrom until about 2008 when I felt Nick deserved to be put ahead. He does not however deserve to be put ahead of Bourque IMO.
Bourque was the better all-around player, was just at a higher level and was at a higher level for quite a bit longer.
 
Last edited:

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Dan even mentioned a quote from Ray Ferraro (who's still a tool btw) that actually got it right for a change. Lidstrom was a very good wheel for them. He got the puck out of the zone and up to his forwards smartly and safely.
Lidstrom at his best would defuse a defensive situation and then quickly move the puck out of the zone tape to tape to a forward. Playing with the puck was NOT his game and never was.

You changed what Ferraro said though. Again, the quote was, "As much as the Red Wings score, the wheel of their offense has always been Nick Lidstrom." Ferraro didn't say Lidstrom just a "very good wheel for them", he says he was the wheel.

I don't totally agree with Ferraro either because obviously the Wings had lots of good offensive players, including other defenseman. I do think you are understating how important Lidstrom was to their offense, and transition to offense. He was a master of helping his teammates catch the other team off guard because he broke up so many plays. He also manned the point so well, hugely contributing to keeping offensive zone pressure and to their vaunted PP. Everything I've seen and read of Harvey displays that he was very similar in this regard - he was not Orr, or even Bourque, in actually rushing the puck and spear heading the offense.

You don't seem capable of fully appreciating Lidstrom's role with his teams. He didn't take risks or rush the puck much, and that was best for the team, because why would you want such a terrific defender being the guy getting caught up ice, especially in a lower scoring era? Bowman points to this in some of his statements, and also compares Lidstrom with Harvey, saying they both fed their forwards with an excellent first pass. It seems like just more nitpicking. No, Lidstrom was not a Karlsson type, but his game was still ridiculously effective. Gretzky had no physical game whatsoever, Mario often lacked any kind of defensive game, Orr was prone to getting caught up ice at times (see '71 playoffs), and Bourque got beat one on one a lot more than Lidstrom. No all-time great was perfect. Lidstrom did not rag the puck or go end to end but his game was still incredibly effective. Anyone who watched his career and saw his accomplishments already knows this.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
You changed what Ferraro said though. Again, the quote was, "As much as the Red Wings score, the wheel of their offense has always been Nick Lidstrom." Ferraro didn't say Lidstrom just a "very good wheel for them", he says he was the wheel.

I don't totally agree with Ferraro either because obviously the Wings had lots of good offensive players, including other defenseman. I do think you are understating how important Lidstrom was to their offense, and transition to offense. He was a master of helping his teammates catch the other team off guard because he broke up so many plays. He also manned the point so well, hugely contributing to keeping offensive zone pressure and to their vaunted PP. Everything I've seen and read of Harvey displays that he was very similar in this regard - he was not Orr, or even Bourque, in actually rushing the puck and spear heading the offense.

You don't seem capable of fully appreciating Lidstrom's role with his teams. He didn't take risks or rush the puck much, and that was best for the team, because why would you want such a terrific defender being the guy getting caught up ice, especially in a lower scoring era? Bowman points to this in some of his statements, and also compares Lidstrom with Harvey, saying they both fed their forwards with an excellent first pass. It seems like just more nitpicking. No, Lidstrom was not a Karlsson type, but his game was still ridiculously effective. Gretzky had no physical game whatsoever, Mario often lacked any kind of defensive game, Orr was prone to getting caught up ice at times (see '71 playoffs), and Bourque got beat one on one a lot more than Lidstrom. No all-time great was perfect. Lidstrom did not rag the puck or go end to end but his game was still incredibly effective. Anyone who watched his career and saw his accomplishments already knows this.

I most certainly did mention Lidstrom's importance in their transition game. I even said Lidstrom was more about transition than possession thank you.

As far as "Lidstrom was their offense"...sorry, as I have said in the past, the ES numbers do not support this to the degree that's being made out.
Are they above average compared to your average top pairing Dman, sure but we're comparing him to Bourque and it's no contest.

And yes, I even agree Lidstrom was better one on one, was a little better on his angles and positioning but at the end of the day, as I keep saying over and over, Bourque's ability to control the puck and a game on his stick was the great equalizer as far as how many goals were scored when each was on the ice.
And remember, the defensive thing is an eye test thing, you saw it just like Bourque's ability to control a game better and produce offensively at ES, that is also something you saw.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
I most certainly did mention Lidstrom's importance in their transition game. I even said Lidstrom was more about transition than possession thank you.

As far as "Lidstrom was their offense"...sorry, as I have said in the past, the ES numbers do not support this to the degree that's being made out.
Are they above average compared to your average top pairing Dman, sure but we're comparing him to Bourque and it's no contest.

And yes, I even agree Lidstrom was better one on one, was a little better on his angles and positioning but at the end of the day, as I keep saying over and over, Bourque's ability to control the puck and a game on his stick was the great equalizer as far as how many goals were scored when each was on the ice.
And remember, the defensive thing is an eye test thing, you saw it just like Bourque's ability to control a game better and produce offensively at ES, that is also something you saw.


And this is where you and I differ, and I doubt we'll change each other's minds. Lidstrom's teams played a team possession game, so this individual possession thing you're going on about is just not something that was even possible on those teams. It runs completely counter to the philosophy employed to have one guy doing much possessing at any given time. Like oil and water. Secondly, it's been pointed out by quotes and other members here that he was the cog of that machine, the quarterback on the ice. Scoring threats were often thwarted by him and the offense and transition was started by him, and he most definitely was a part of the offensive thrust as evidenced by him often being in the top 4-5 scoring rank on teams that featured forwards like Yzerman, Shanahan, Fedorov, and Hull. You know, guys who just didn't score that frequently. ;)
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
And this is where you and I differ, and I doubt we'll change each other's minds. Lidstrom's teams played a team possession game, so this individual possession thing you're going on about is just not something that was even possible on those teams. It runs completely counter to the philosophy employed to have one guy doing much possessing at any given time. Like oil and water. Secondly, it's been pointed out by quotes and other members here that he was the cog of that machine, the quarterback on the ice. Scoring threats were often thwarted by him and the offense and transition was started by him, and he most definitely was a part of the offensive thrust as evidenced by him often being in the top 4-5 scoring rank on teams that featured forwards like Yzerman, Shanahan, Fedorov, and Hull. You know, guys who just didn't score that frequently. ;)

Problem here is that arguing how important and how involved Lidstrom was with the Wings transition and offense doesn't really get you any where in a vs Bourque situation.
Bourque pushed and created more offense than Lidstrom ever did. Controlled a game and the puck better and more often and was just generally a MORE important cog to Boston that Lidstrom was to Detroit.
Bourque also played more minutes and did more with a lot less.

Again, no one is saying that Lidstrom didn't stand out among other first pairing Dmen. He obviously did. Its that he quite simply wasn't as effective e or stand out as much as Bourque did vs other top pairing Dmen.

In the simplest terms, Bourque was just an over-all better player period.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
Problem here is that arguing how important and how involved Lidstrom was with the Wings transition and offense doesn't really get you any where in a vs Bourque situation.
Bourque pushed and created more offense than Lidstrom ever did. Controlled a game and the puck better and more often and was just generally a MORE important cog to Boston that Lidstrom was to Detroit.
Bourque also played more minutes and did more with a lot less.

Again, no one is saying that Lidstrom didn't stand out among other first pairing Dmen. He obviously did. Its that he quite simply wasn't as effective e or stand out as much as Bourque did vs other top pairing Dmen.

In the simplest terms, Bourque was just an over-all better player period.


So here you go again. No he wasn't. Period. :laugh:


You can't take Lidstrom out of the Wings' team puck possession system. To see him in another light, like Bourque's, he'd have to be on a team that didn't play the E-W, team possession system. You cannot claim that he couldn't do what Bourque because he was on a different team and style. If you took Bourque and put him on that same Wings' team, there is NO way on a Bowman team that he would have driven the offense in the same way.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
So here you go again. No he wasn't. Period. :laugh:


You can't take Lidstrom out of the Wings' team puck possession system. To see him in another light, like Bourque's, he'd have to be on a team that didn't play the E-W, team possession system. You cannot claim that he couldn't do what Bourque because he was on a different team and style. If you took Bourque and put him on that same Wings' team, there is NO way on a Bowman team that he would have driven the offense in the same way.

Except Bowman let Coffey do exactly that so your assumption and make no mistake, that IS all you are making here, has exactly zero merit and basis.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Except Bowman let Coffey do exactly that so your assumption and make no mistake, that IS all you are making here, has exactly zero merit and basis.

Did he indeed my dear Rhiessan. Some interesting comments from an old thread here on hf about Bowman & Coffey...

It was just not a good marriage. The Penguins were an offensive powerhouse, and to say that the star forwards (Lemieux, Stevens, Recchi) did not enjoy Bowman's grating personality and tedious attention to defense would be a major understatement. They were coming off winning the Stanley Cup, and going from the beloved Bob Johnson to the grumpy Bowman was asking for trouble. To Bowman's credit, he improved their defense by leaps and bounds; but the Penguins went out with the goal of repeating as Cup champions as a way to honor their late coach Johnson, and put aside their disdain for Bowman at least for that one season.

Bowman was notoriously quick to put his imprint on the roster. Mark Recchi was dealt for Rick Tocchet, partly due to Recchi's sliding defensive play and a stupid remark about how he believed "his +/- didn't matter." Paul Coffey was practically given away to Los Angeles, because to put it frankly, Coffey and Bowman mix as well as oil and water. For the defending champions to have their best defenseman and arguably their best winger dealt mid-way through the season, something had to give; in hindsight, Bowman sacrificed his relationship with the players in order to improve the team, especially defensively, and to add a physical edge.

A tough, defensive-minded coach like Scotty Bowman and a superstar forward like Mario Lemieux just didn't go well together. That's pretty much what happened, and it was only made worse by the Coffey and Recchi trades, especially considering Recchi was Mario's primary right wing for the previous 2+ seasons.

It wasn't the last time Bowman would clash with a star forward. His relationship with Sergei Fedorov, in Detroit, was strained, to say the least. Fedorov hated Bowman's system and the fact that Bowman would actually use him as a defenseman once in a while. Interestingly enough, they put their differences aside for the sake of winning, and boy, did they ever win. Fedorov grew into Bowman's most trusted forward, and was his go-to guy in almost every situation, winning 3 Stanley Cups, a Hart, and multiple Selke Trophies under his watch. Bowman also went out of his way to reward Fedorov for his loyalty; I remember reading about when Bowman told Fedorov that they had traded for Slava Fetisov. Apparently it was on the team plane, and Fedorov almost jumped through the ceiling.

The story about Bowman and Coffey is true, which made the whole Coffey to Detroit situation oh so strange. As hard-headed as Bowman is/was, he didn't take much personally, which may be his best trait. Hard to believe he would ever want any part of Coffey, but there was a more defensively responsible Coffey playing for Bowman's Wings several years later. Ironic.

Of course theres more, much more here & elsewhere. You want the kitchen sink & the piping that goes with?
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
Did he indeed my dear Rhiessan. Some interesting comments from an old thread here on hf about Bowman & Coffey...


Of course theres more, much more here & elsewhere. You want the kitchen sink & the piping that goes with?

Oh no doubt, Bowman definitely made Coffey exert more effort defensively than he normally wanted to but at the same time, you were still free to take risks under Bowman provided you took care of your defensive responsibilities first.

Coffey produced at even strength at a rate of 0.52 ESPpG in his 3 full seasons under Bowman in Detroit.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
No need to get like that.
Simply prove me wrong and show me how he curtailed Coffey in the way you believe he would curtail Bourque.

You tried to make a statement not supported by the facts.


Bowman had a system that he expected all his players to buy into, including Yzerman. I don't know that Blades narrative above about Fedorov is really accurate in the sense that Feds was a Soviet-trained center, already very familiar with playing the two-way center, puck possessions system. Fedorov was very defensively responsible before he ever got to Detroit. Yzerman chaffed more at the idea of giving up his offense first ways and playing Bowman's two-way game. Yzerman's personal scoring declined but the team got exponentially better.

The rumors about Yzerman being on his way out of Detroit were true, as Yzerman believed that he was being sent to Ottawa in Oct 1994. (I've researched this in another thread, with links to the Detroit Free Press.) Fedorov was considered the #1 Center by this point. Yzerman did finally buy into Scotty's system, and the rest is history.

If Yzerman was going to get the boot for not buying into it, why would you think that Bourque or Coffey could just do whatever they pleased?

And back to Lidstrom. He was still pretty young, just finding his sea legs when Bowman came to Detroit. He was absolutely and completely molded by Bowman.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...-TNQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RVUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2099,837450


Interesting image of a news article that discusses the trade of Coffey out of Detroit. It's obvious that the Wings were going to trade him to Hartford or another team if that didn't work. The relationship with Bowman was strained, and Primeau also clearly wanted out of Detroit. Shanahan wanted out of Hartford, and so the deal was finally made.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
Bowman had a system that he expected all his players to buy into, including Yzerman. I don't know that Blades narrative above about Fedorov is really accurate in the sense that Feds was a Soviet-trained center, already very familiar with the two-way center, puck possessions system. Fedorov was very defensively responsible before he ever got to Detroit. Yzerman chaffed more at the idea of giving up his offense first ways and playing Bowman's two-way game. Yzerman's personal scoring declined but the team got exponentially better.

The rumors about Yzerman being on his way out of Detroit were true, as Yzerman believed that he was being sent to Ottawa in Oct 1994. (I've researched this in another thread, with links to the Detroit Free Press.) Fedorov was considered the #1 Center by this point. Yzerman did finally buy into Scotty's system, and the rest is history.

If Yzerman was going to get the boot for not buying into it, why would you think that Bourque or Coffey could just do whatever they pleased?

And back to Lidstrom. He was still pretty young, just finding his sea legs when Bowman came to Detroit. He was absolutely and completely molded by Bowman.

Can't disagree with most of this, it jives with pretty much everything I have researched too.

One thing to be straight though, Bowman never had an issue with Coffey's offense or his ability to carry the puck. It was always about his level of commitment or lack thereof to defends that drove Bowman mad.
Bowman had no issue with Robinson rushing the puck and he had no issue with even letting a 40+ year old Harvey come in right out the minors and run his defends and control the puck and the game.

Now we're talking about Bourque, a guy known as one of the best defensive Dmen in the League for more than decade and a guy known as one the best risk managers in history.
Quite frankly, with Bourque's track record and play over the years, to even suggest that he "wouldn't fit in" under Bowman is plain ridiculous and there is absolutely nothing to support such a conclusion.
Bourque was not a north-south rusher like Coffey and he sure as hell didn't have any problems with defensive effort or play.

Bourque would've been a dream for Bowman and IMO would've made Detroit even better than Lidstrom did.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Oh no doubt, Bowman definitely made Coffey exert more effort defensively than he normally wanted to but at the same time, you were still free to take risks under Bowman provided you took care of your defensive responsibilities first.

Ya, absolutely. I think ultimately though and while its never been publicly stated, Bowman very likely felt that Coffey simply by approach to the game far too much of a Free~Lancer and Opportunist. I suppose on some levels maybe even puck selfish at times. Refused to be saddled & bridled. Certainly the divide was fairly substantial between the two and eventually the split acrimonious. Well documented. Coffey's not said much about it in intervening years but he did talk of Lidstrom in a 2012 article on Kuklas Korner that was fairly illuminating.

Bowman had a system that he expected all his players to buy into... If Yzerman was going to get the boot for not buying into it, why would you think that Bourque or Coffey could just do whatever they pleased?

One thing to be straight though, Bowman never had an issue with Coffey's offense or his ability to carry the puck. It was always about his level of commitment or lack thereof to defends that drove Bowman mad.

Now we're talking about Bourque, a guy known as one of the best defensive Dmen in the League for more than decade and a guy known as one the best risk managers in history. Quite frankly, with Bourque's track record and play over the years, to even suggest that he "wouldn't fit in" under Bowman is plain ridiculous and there is absolutely nothing to support such a conclusion. Bourque was not a north-south rusher like Coffey and he sure as hell didn't have any problems with defensive effort or play.

Bourque would've been a dream for Bowman and IMO would've made Detroit even better than Lidstrom did.

Dont believe the posters suggesting the bolded above Rhiess. Ray Bourque wouldve bought into Bowmans system in a heartbeat without any problems whatsoever. In fact its too bad he didnt get that opportunity though if your a Bruins fan, maybe not huh? Rip him out of the Boston line~up through those years not so good for Bean Town. Bourque to Bowman, Im sure if Detroit had somehow managed to acquire him the comparisons to Orr would be like a river, a torrent, with that kind of supporting cast? Absolutely. Imagine he & Lidstrom paired? Or Salming & Orr on Detroits back end during Scottys reign & into the 00's?

Same sort of dynamic. Lidstrom did everything well, was bigger, longer reach than Coffey, Chelios & Bourque and played the angles like a Professor that negated his need for the kind of physicality of a guy like Bourque or Orr at times. Nick did everything well in using his size advantage & playing in reverse triangulations. He didnt need to step into anybody because he had the wheels combined with the size, was just tremendous with his stickwork, positioning. They couldnt beat him to the outside & if forced inside to the boards he'd just sort of gently ride them into the boards forcing a turnover & collecting the puck himself or forcing a harmless shot from the perimeters. He in fact did almost everything to the reverse of how Defenceman are taught in North America, certainly in Canada. Personally I preferred playing with mobile, smart & savvy guys like Lidstrom on my Defence as they werent the type who fully committed with physicality & checks. Got tied up, then caught out of position. Scramble back.

The other interesting thing about Lidstrom, and there are many, was his shot. 98% of the players you face as as you know as a Goalie yourself have a Sweet Spot on their blades, mid~way point. Lidstrom, this guy was just plain "out there" using the tip of his blade, sometimes the heel, points in between. For a Goalie facing such, total Nightmare. You cant get a bead or read on where that puck might be headed. Lidstrom could zing one in at you at 100mph from the tip of his blade which had a slight sharp hook on it (unusual) doing obviously very strange things to the pucks flight path. I faced Orrs' & Napiers, plenty of others Howitzers, Slapshots, Flick & Wristers, all of them with the exception of a very very few always shooting from the Sweet Spot on their blades.

In reading, projecting trajectory from your crease in the split second youve got before release, usually not hard to tell where that pucks headed. As an old Goalie once said of Bobby Hulls Slapshot; "the puck on his blade upon moment of impact looks like the size of pea then vanishes". Quite a common phenomena in fact when you hit Major Jr through Pro. You dont always see the puck in flight, it does in fact vanish and not just from screens. You could have a clear view but the speed combined with dips or risers, plays optical tricks, can screw you up big time like the odd Whiffer you see going in from a shot from behind Center & almost every Goalie who's ever played has had that happen.... So theres that & more when considering Lidstrom, and indeed some pundits have claimed Nik Lidstrom was the Greatest Red Wing of All Time, ranking him 3rd Greatest Defenceman All Time behind Orr & Doug Harvey, some though putting him ahead of Harvey. Personally I put Lidstrom in the #3 Spot BUT interchangeable with Bourque who simply wasnt (with the exception of Colorado but there, entirely different set of circumstances, end of career, Mercenary act) ever provided with the kind of Bench Boss & Supporting Cast his talent deserved. So absent that, history being what it is, I do rank Nikki Lidstrom over Ray Bourque. For Lidstrom, the perfect storm. For Bourque, well, you know that story.
 
Last edited:

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
That's it exactly, Killy.

I did not suggest what Bourque would have done, but pointed out that it was pointless to use that puck hog/individual possession aspect as a knock against Lidstrom. He never was allowed to play in any such way that would highlight that aspect of his game. Had he been anywhere else, who knows? Had Bourque been in Detroit under Bowman, he would have to buy in -- or take the railroad out of town.

As such, Lidstrom indeed was the perfect canvas for the team possession system. We know that already because we watched it for 2+ decades. It doesn't mean another greatly skilled defender wouldn't have been able to adapt. Coffey wasn't willing to do it, or maybe it was just personality + cost. All I know is that guys who didn't listen to Scotty didn't get to stay.


That's pretty nifty about the shooting style. He obviously was deadly from the point and turned Tomas Holmstrom into a scoring forward...He even joked about it once wondering how many more goals he'd have if Homer hadn't stolen so many of his, but yes, they were quite accomplished at the front-goal deflections. Low and heavy shot. :)
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...-TNQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RVUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2099,837450

Interesting image of a news article that discusses the trade of Coffey out of Detroit. It's obvious that the Wings were going to trade him to Hartford or another team if that didn't work. The relationship with Bowman was strained, and Primeau also clearly wanted out of Detroit. Shanahan wanted out of Hartford, and so the deal was finally made.

I faintly remember reading this article at the time. I call BS on Bowman's quote:

"It's mainly his contract" - $8.1M contract remaining over 3 years

It doesn't jive with anything Ilitch did before or after. Ilitch wanted a winner so badly by then and he's never been a cheap owner so he would never tell management to ship out a HOFer over money. This was Bowman being Bowman, not admitting he wanted Coffey gone.

I know as a fan it seemed like an eternity to me I thought the Red Wings would never beat Roy and the Avs even though they just lost one series.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
That's pretty nifty about the shooting style. He obviously was deadly from the point and turned Tomas Holmstrom into a scoring forward...He even joked about it once wondering how many more goals he'd have if Homer hadn't stolen so many of his, but yes, they were quite accomplished at the front-goal deflections. Low and heavy shot. :)

That was an excellent analysis by Killion. I watched his whole career and never really noticed this until I read an article where a player pointed to this same thing about Lidstrom's shot. I think it was Chelios and he said Lidstrom never wanted the puck in his wheelhouse for the one-timer like most because of the part of the blade he used.

They weren't always low and heavy deflected shots. Two of his most memorable goals were top corner one-timers against Irbe in the '02 finals and Niittymaki for the gold medal in the '06 Olympics. Nightmare shots for butterfly goalies like those two.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
I faintly remember reading this article at the time. I call BS on Bowman's quote:

"It's mainly his contract" - $8.1M contract remaining over 3 years

It doesn't jive with anything Ilitch did before or after. Ilitch wanted a winner so badly by then and he's never been a cheap owner so he would never tell management to ship out a HOFer over money. This was Bowman being Bowman, not admitting he wanted Coffey gone.

I know as a fan it seemed like an eternity to me I thought the Red Wings would never beat Roy and the Avs even though they just lost one series.

Every Wings fan felt this way. My best friend since grade 6 (30+ years now) is a huge Wings fan and has been since Stevie Y converted him from a Laffs fan in the mid 80's and we talked about this at length prior to winning the Cup.
The Wings biggest problem was consistency out of their goaltenders. Detroit was actually a very fragile team mentally prior to '97. They had no confidence in their goaltending and every bad goal would deflate them more than it should have. It wasn't until Vernon stepped up and delivered in '97 that they put it behind them.
Vernon won the Conn that year not because he was spectacular but because he delivered what they hadn't had in decades, a goalie making big saves at the right time.
Vernon helped them get over the hump and was huge in pretty much changing the entire culture of that team.

IMO, Vernon's importance can not be overstated for that team moving forward.


As for Lidstrom's shooting style, as a goalie I understand that completely, however when comparing him to not just the Dman, but the actual player that is the all-time shots leader in NHL history...I think that kinda speaks for itself.
MacInnis might have been the most feared player from the point but Bourque was the most dangerous.
 
Last edited:

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
As for Lidstrom's shooting style, as a goalie I understand that completely, however when comparing him to not just the Dman, but the actual player that is the all-time shots leader in NHL history...I think that kinda speaks for itself.
MacInnis might have been the most feared player from the point but Bourque was the most dangerous.


Ah, this explains everything!








(Just kidding. ;))
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->