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

[Rhiessan71]

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

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

The same reason he didn't win the Calder right?


The ONLY year Lidstrom has a case is '98 when Blake won and that was made up for with the '11 Norris.
MacInnis was better in '99 and Pronger was better in '00.

His top-4 finishes were;
97-98: 2nd
98-99: 2nd
99-00: 2nd
00-01: 1st
01-02: 1st
02-03: 1st
05-06: 1st
06-07: 1st
07-08: 1st
08-09: 3rd
09-10: 4th
10-11: 1st
(12 total)

Bourque's top-4 finishes against stronger competition were;
79-80: 4th
80-81: 4th
81-82: 2nd
82-83: 3rd
83-84: 3rd
84-85: 2nd
85-86: 4th
86-87: 1st
87-88: 1st
88-89: 4th
89-90: 1st
90-91: 1st
91-92: 2nd
92-93: 2nd
93-94: 1st
94-95: 3rd
95-96: 2nd
98-99: 3rd
00-01: 2nd

(yeah...that's 19 total)

And let us not forget about Bourque's 2 Hart runner-ups (Only one really as in my eyes and many others, he actually won the '90 Hart)

 

[Fugu]

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

Exactly. This one doesn't require much further thought than to count up a few things.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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

Does "better career" just mean "more team success?" Because one could certainly argue that even if Lidstrom and Bourque were close as players, Bourque clearly had a better career because he maintained that level of play for about 5 more years.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

(mod)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peak Coffey was capable of playing defense, yes. But like every Oilers star, he didn't bother trying in the regular season. Always upped his defensive game in the playoffs though. Still, the idea that Coffey was anywhere close to the level of Bourque (who was listed as one of the best defensive defensemen in the league by NHL coaches when he was at his best) on the defensive end of things is absurd.

Basically, I wouldn't have an issue with someone who wanted to say Bourque was the 3rd best of these 4 in his own zone - but any possible gap between Lidstrom/Stevens and Bourque (if there is any) is clearly smaller than the gap between Bourque and Coffey. Again, talking strictly defensively.

 

[Big Phil]

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

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

The only one I hear about is 1998. MacInnis had a great year in 1999 and Pronger in 2000. Hard to argue there. I can't think of a year prior to 1998 though. Was he better than Leetch in 1997? Chelios/Bourque in 1996? Coffey in 1995? Bourque in 1994? Never that I saw. I personally would have rewarded Weber with the Norris in 2011. It was an extremely close one either way. 1998 I can see why the voters picked Blake though. He was all alone in L.A. There was very little support on that team. Not an elite team that's for sure. Stats-wise Blake was pretty good as well.

But no, there wasn't any anti-Euro bias against Lidstrom. He was sort of like Sundin that way, even the biggest anti-Euro fan would find it hard to dislike him.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The only one I hear about is 1998. MacInnis had a great year in 1999 and Pronger in 2000. Hard to argue there. I can't think of a year prior to 1998 though. Was he better than Leetch in 1997? Chelios/Bourque in 1996? Coffey in 1995? Bourque in 1994? Never that I saw. I personally would have rewarded Weber with the Norris in 2011. It was an extremely close one either way. 1998 I can see why the voters picked Blake though. He was all alone in L.A. There was very little support on that team. Not an elite team that's for sure. Stats-wise Blake was pretty good as well.

But no, there wasn't any anti-Euro bias against Lidstrom. He was sort of like Sundin that way, even the biggest anti-Euro fan would find it hard to dislike him.

There was definitely a bias against the way Lidstrom played - a bias against the European style, not Europeans in general. That said, I think it's hard to argue that it cost him more than one Norris (1998). And like others have said, Lidstrom got his own questionable Norris at the tail end of his career.

 

[The Panther]

And let us not forget about Bourque's 2 Hart runner-ups (Only one really as in my eyes and many others, he actually won the '90 Hart)

Bourque is one of my favorites and one of the greatest players ever, but I totally disagree with you -- I think Messier was the deserved winner of the '90 Hart. I watched the Oilers all that season, and I've never seen one guy dominate a team like that. Bourque may have been close, but the voters were correct.

Anyhoo...

About the thread topic, knowing what we know now and reflecting on their careers as a whole, I'd probably pick:
1) Bourque
2) Lidstrom
3) Coffey
4) Stevens

If we're talking about a team that needed an offensive defenseman / power-play quarterback, I'd probably pick:
1) Bourque
2) Coffey
3) Lidstrom
4) Stevens

And if we're talking about a soft team that needed help clearing people away from the net (say, like, Edmonton in 2014), I'd probably pick:
1) Stevens
2) Lidstrom
3) Bourque
4) Coffey

Then again, if we're ignoring careers as a whole and instead focusing on each player's five-to-ten peak years, I'd probably pick:
1) Bourque
2a) Coffey
2b) Lidstrom
4) Stevens

 

[Budddy]

Bourque is one of my favorites and one of the greatest players ever, but I totally disagree with you -- I think Messier was the deserved winner of the '90 Hart. I watched the Oilers all that season, and I've never seen one guy dominate a team like that. Bourque may have been close, but the voters were correct.

Anyhoo...

About the thread topic, knowing what we know now and reflecting on their careers as a whole, I'd probably pick:
1) Bourque
2) Lidstrom
3) Coffey
4) Stevens

If we're talking about a team that needed an offensive defenseman / power-play quarterback, I'd probably pick:
1) Bourque
2) Coffey
3) Lidstrom
4) Stevens

And if we're talking about a soft team that needed help clearing people away from the net (say, like, Edmonton in 2014), I'd probably pick:
1) Stevens
2) Lidstrom
3) Bourque
4) Coffey

Then again, if we're ignoring careers as a whole and instead focusing on each player's five-to-ten peak years, I'd probably pick:
1) Bourque
2a) Coffey
2b) Lidstrom
4) Stevens

Good list...problem with 1990 voting was that some writers left Bourque off their ballots...rumour was it was Edmonton writers but that was never proven....I don't think...

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Does "better career" just mean "more team success?" Because one could certainly argue that even if Lidstrom and Bourque were close as players, Bourque clearly had a better career because he maintained that level of play for about 5 more years.

Well, I mean, Lidstrom has more Norris trophies AND he's in the triple gold club.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Good list...problem with 1990 voting was that some writers left Bourque off their ballots...rumour was it was Edmonton writers but that was never proven....I don't think...

Looking t the numbers from that season, I noticed a real oddity.

Paul Coffey led the league in goals on the ice for AND goals on the ice against. It may be the only time its happened.

The season before, Mario was first in goal for, 2nd for goals against, while Gretzky was 2d for goals for and first for goals against.

IN 99-00 Lidstrom was first in goals for (by one) and second in goals against (by one).

Bourque and Leetch were in the top 5 of both a few times, but Coffey's feat is really unique.

 

[Crymson]

That's my order too. No one was as good for as LONG as Bourque at the LEVEL of Bourque.

Lidstrom was perfection incarnate on the ice, and he kept it up for his entire career.

 

[Wrath]

Lidstrom was perfection incarnate on the ice, and he kept it up for his entire career.

Was he perfection incarnate in 1995 and 1996??

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Well, I mean, Lidstrom has more Norris trophies AND he's in the triple gold club.

More Norris Trophies because of lesser competition. Triple Gold Club because NHLers couldn't participate at the Olympics during Bourque's best years.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lidstrom was perfection incarnate on the ice, and he kept it up for his entire career.

Bourque's 19 all-star nods in 22 seasons to Lidstrom's 12 in 20 seasons tends to say different.

Bourque had one more first team all-star nod than Lidstrom had TOTAL all-star nods...seriously...nuff said already.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Well, I mean, Lidstrom has more Norris trophies AND he's in the triple gold club.

More Norris Trophies because of lesser competition. Triple Gold Club because NHLers couldn't participate at the Olympics during Bourque's best years.

Right, giving Lidstrom credit in this comparison for being part of the Triple Gold Club is like giving Bourque credit for being on Canada Cup winners.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Right, giving Lidstrom credit in this comparison for being part of the Triple Gold Club is like giving Bourque credit for being on Canada Cup winners.

Then this is better player vs. better player, there's no getting around it.

 

[OzzyFan]

Then this is better player vs. better player, there's no getting around it.

You think Lidstrom would have stolen Norris's from peak Coffey and peak Wilson?

Can't hold that against Bourque if you wouldn't hold that against Lidstrom. Lidstrom wouldn't have near 7 Norris's if he was 10yrs younger/played during the Bourque/Coffey/Wilson/Langway era. Bourque just played at a higher level longer than Lidstrom, no way around it and not really any way to argue against that either.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

You think Lidstrom would have stolen Norris's from peak Coffey and peak Wilson?

Can't hold that against Bourque if you wouldn't hold that against Lidstrom. Lidstrom wouldn't have near 7 Norris's if he was 10yrs younger/played during the Bourque/Coffey/Wilson/Langway era. Bourque just played at a higher level longer than Lidstrom, no way around it and not really any way to argue against that either.

Bourque's noteworthy competition was more Chelios/Stevens/Leetch/Coffey/Langway/MacInnis/Howe/Blake.

Lidstrom was Niedermayer/injured Pronger/Chara/Weber/Keith.

The talent difference between the two groups is noticeable. Lidstrom definitively could have won Norrises if he played at the same time as Bourque, just not 7 of them. I'm guessing 3.

 

[The Panther]

As mentioned, Bourque's unbelievable consistency and his number of 1st-All Star selections over a twenty (?) year span makes him the overall favorite, I think. No, Lidstrom cannot compare with that. Each of the 4 great defensemen brings special things to the table, but from an overall perspective, nobody since Bobby Orr can beat Bourque, in my view.

I rank Lidstrom maybe 2nd-best of the 4, overall -- but I think Coffey's peak might have been better and Stevens might have been harder to play against. To be honest (I've said this before), I find Lidstrom a bit over-rated right now in hockey culture. He was probably under-rated before he won the Conn Smythe, and since then he's been St. Lidstrom, unable to be criticized and the patron-saint of defense. This slightly out-of-focus view is likely to be balanced with the passing of time.

Nevertheless, Lidstrom rests safely as one of the greatest D-men ever. He just wasn't as good overall as Bourque.

 

[Big Phil]

Bourque's 19 all-star nods in 21 seasons to Lidstrom's 12 in 20 seasons tends to say different.

Bourque had one more first team all-star nod than Lidstrom had TOTAL all-star nods...seriously...nuff said already.

That's the thing, I saw both careers and no matter what I can't say that I saw Lidstrom as good for as long as Bourque or at his same level for that long either. Lidstrom never was as good as Bourque in his best years. Not quite. Bourque did this forever too. Lidstrom took a bit longer to reach that Norris-threat level. Bourque was there right away.

The better all around defenseman at a higher level was Bourque. The worst he ever finished in his entire career was 7th for the Norris. 19 out of 22 seasons he was top 4. That's mind boggling.

 

[DRWCountryClub]

That's the thing, I saw both careers and no matter what I can't say that I saw Lidstrom as good for as long as Bourque or at his same level for that long either. Lidstrom never was as good as Bourque in his best years. Not quite. Bourque did this forever too. Lidstrom took a bit longer to reach that Norris-threat level. Bourque was there right away.

The better all around defenseman at a higher level was Bourque. The worst he ever finished in his entire career was 7th for the Norris. 19 out of 22 seasons he was top 4. That's mind boggling.

The better all around defenseman was Lidstrom. He was always defense first and was still the best offensive defenseman of his generation.

Lidstrom was able to take very good teams and make them great, as well as play at an elite level over many different changes that the game saw over his career. He played most of his prime in a 30 team league versus Bourque playing a high percentage of his in a 21 team league. Many opponents of Lidstrom act like sure fire hall of famers like Pronger and Neidermayer are not good competition, when they can compare directly to players like Coffey, Chelios, and Stevens, which really doesn't matter because they comparison is between Lidstrom and Bourque.

I've argued this a few times, but I'll try again at 3 am... Well, what's the point? You can't win against Bourque supporters. With other players they compare them to their peers versus other generations, with Lidstrom, his competition sucked. Well, trophy wise he cleaned up versus Bourque, 4 Cups, 6 Finals, Conn Smythe, 7 Norris, 10 All Star(mind you mostly against more competition, we established much of Bourque's prime was against less teams and players), yet again, it was less competition, Lidstrom played for better teams(even though two of the four Cup wins came on a first place team and Bourque was unable to win himself on very good teams, including teams that placed better than Detroit).

Well Bourque scored more points, right? Well much of that was in a high scoring era, Lidstrom dominated his peers and was generally always top 3 in scoring for much of his career, and the only dman not to play in the 80's to score over 1000 points. Anyone else and they would dismiss Bourque's points totals for the era he played in, not vs Lidstrom.

Much of the argument against Lidstrom is anecdotal or grasping; he played against better competition, Lidstrom always played on an all star team, Bourque was runner up more, Bourque was better to MY eyes, Bourque's Cup win was a great hockey moment, Bourque never played on teams like the Wings, if Lidstrom played against prime so and so he wouldn't have won as much...

When it comes to hard facts, it's irrefutable for Bourque, but for Lidstrom it's not... Bourque has more first team all stars. Lidstrom has more Norris trophies(well less competition, Bourque has more runner up, etc). Lidstrom has 4 Cups, well Bourque never played on such great teams(he routinely played on good to great teams)...

Another thing, people LOVE to bring up international achievements for Canadians, but never to the same extent to Euros. Lidstrom has a Gold Medal, which is never brought up vs Bourque.
I just don't understand why such a great player, literally a guy who is one of the best players to ever play the game, couldn't win a Cup until he was traded from his beloved team, to a stacked team and favourite to win it all. Lidstrom won 4 Cups, over 6 Finals, with a Conn Smythe, first Euro Captain to win the Cup, NEVER missed the playoffs, rarely ever even missed regular season games, won over different time frames and different eras with different players... He's got more Cups, Norris Trophies, Conn Smythe, playing against Hall of Famers just like Bourque did, and was the backbone of the best franchise over a good 20 years(sorry Steve), so he's my pick above Bourque.

Yes, I'll concede Ray had more all star appearances and overall Norris voting, hell, he even ALMOST won a Hart(but didn't). When it comes to hard evidence though, I believe Lidstrom wins. If you can bring up that hard evidence and it shows that Bourque was clearly better, I'm all for it.

 

[Fredrik_71]

1 Lidstrom - 4 Cups, 7 Norris, Conn Smythe, Olympic Gold
2 Bourque - 1 Cup, 5 Norris, Career Leader in G,A,Pts by a defenseman
3 Coffey - 4 Cups, 3 Norris


4 Stevens - 3 Cups, Conn Smythe

This! The poll asked for the best career. Its an easy one. Personally I rank Bourque ahead of Lidström when it comes to best d-man.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

My beef with Bourque will always be his drop in postseason play after the the 1991 Adams finals. And im not just talking statistically.

The Bruins should have won the Wales in 1991. That Bruin team crumbled at the worst time, and Bourque was a major culprit in the Pens meltdown.

There was a period where he was getting torched to the outside on a regular basis. He would have a dominant series followed by a disappearing act, specifically in 1991, 1992, 1994 and 1999.

In 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996, he was posterized on either series winning or critical game-winning goals.

Granted, i know Lidstrom had some moments as well, but to me Bourque looked like a gassed player come playoff time after his dominant 1990 performance. To his credit, he was energized after the trade he demanded. And in the Carolina series he was a force.

I just never saw that with Lidstrom.

I have a hard time believing a guy goes home with an AS nod and a first round exit and is satisfied. Nearly every player interviewed in tne preseason say playoff success always trumps personal success.

Thats why Lidstrom had the better career.

 

[Thenameless]

I'd rather have had Lidstrom's career than Bourque's, considering the hardware that each of them won.

I also do think that Bourque was the better defenceman.

 

[Big Phil]

My beef with Bourque will always be his drop in postseason play after the the 1991 Adams finals. And im not just talking statistically.

The Bruins should have won the Wales in 1991. That Bruin team crumbled at the worst time, and Bourque was a major culprit in the Pens meltdown.

There was a period where he was getting torched to the outside on a regular basis. He would have a dominant series followed by a disappearing act, specifically in 1991, 1992, 1994 and 1999.

In 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996, he was posterized on either series winning or critical game-winning goals.

Granted, i know Lidstrom had some moments as well, but to me Bourque looked like a gassed player come playoff time after his dominant 1990 performance. To his credit, he was energized after the trade he demanded. And in the Carolina series he was a force.

I just never saw that with Lidstrom.

I have a hard time believing a guy goes home with an AS nod and a first round exit and is satisfied. Nearly every player interviewed in tne preseason say playoff success always trumps personal success.

Thats why Lidstrom had the better career.

When did you ever hear Bourque say he was satisfied with a first round exit? I never heard that from him. The guy obviously wanted to win a Cup, which explains going to Colorado. Boston was religiously a team that Sinden was cheap with. They had the money to attract more stars and didn't. The management was content with no Cups. Not Bourque. Plus even in 1991 you'll remember that was the series that Neely got hurt from Ulfie. And even though the Pens won 4 games straight, Bourque still had 4 points in that loss. And it was Mario Lemieux he was going against, just saying.

The better all around defenseman was Lidstrom. He was always defense first and was still the best offensive defenseman of his generation.

Lidstrom was able to take very good teams and make them great, as well as play at an elite level over many different changes that the game saw over his career. He played most of his prime in a 30 team league versus Bourque playing a high percentage of his in a 21 team league. Many opponents of Lidstrom act like sure fire hall of famers like Pronger and Neidermayer are not good competition, when they can compare directly to players like Coffey, Chelios, and Stevens, which really doesn't matter because they comparison is between Lidstrom and Bourque.

I've argued this a few times, but I'll try again at 3 am... Well, what's the point? You can't win against Bourque supporters. With other players they compare them to their peers versus other generations, with Lidstrom, his competition sucked. Well, trophy wise he cleaned up versus Bourque, 4 Cups, 6 Finals, Conn Smythe, 7 Norris, 10 All Star(mind you mostly against more competition, we established much of Bourque's prime was against less teams and players), yet again, it was less competition, Lidstrom played for better teams(even though two of the four Cup wins came on a first place team and Bourque was unable to win himself on very good teams, including teams that placed better than Detroit).

Well Bourque scored more points, right? Well much of that was in a high scoring era, Lidstrom dominated his peers and was generally always top 3 in scoring for much of his career, and the only dman not to play in the 80's to score over 1000 points. Anyone else and they would dismiss Bourque's points totals for the era he played in, not vs Lidstrom.

Much of the argument against Lidstrom is anecdotal or grasping; he played against better competition, Lidstrom always played on an all star team, Bourque was runner up more, Bourque was better to MY eyes, Bourque's Cup win was a great hockey moment, Bourque never played on teams like the Wings, if Lidstrom played against prime so and so he wouldn't have won as much...

When it comes to hard facts, it's irrefutable for Bourque, but for Lidstrom it's not... Bourque has more first team all stars. Lidstrom has more Norris trophies(well less competition, Bourque has more runner up, etc). Lidstrom has 4 Cups, well Bourque never played on such great teams(he routinely played on good to great teams)...

Another thing, people LOVE to bring up international achievements for Canadians, but never to the same extent to Euros. Lidstrom has a Gold Medal, which is never brought up vs Bourque.
I just don't understand why such a great player, literally a guy who is one of the best players to ever play the game, couldn't win a Cup until he was traded from his beloved team, to a stacked team and favourite to win it all. Lidstrom won 4 Cups, over 6 Finals, with a Conn Smythe, first Euro Captain to win the Cup, NEVER missed the playoffs, rarely ever even missed regular season games, won over different time frames and different eras with different players... He's got more Cups, Norris Trophies, Conn Smythe, playing against Hall of Famers just like Bourque did, and was the backbone of the best franchise over a good 20 years(sorry Steve), so he's my pick above Bourque.

Yes, I'll concede Ray had more all star appearances and overall Norris voting, hell, he even ALMOST won a Hart(but didn't). When it comes to hard evidence though, I believe Lidstrom wins. If you can bring up that hard evidence and it shows that Bourque was clearly better, I'm all for it.

The hard evidence is often brought up. You are not a fan of the eye test, okay fine, but I am and Bourque easily controlled the pace of the game better. It isn't that Lidstrom didn't, it's just that Bourque did it better. He carried the puck, he was more central to the offense of the Bruins than Lidstrom was the Wings. He WAS the Bruins at one point, literally.

Bourque led the Bruins in points in 1985, 1987, 1988, 1991 and 1992. Lidstrom didn't do it once. So when a person says Bourque was better defensively they aren't just being difficult, they may have actually saw him play or they realize how integral he was to the Bruins offensively. It has nothing to do with what era he played in. A defenseman leading his team in points is as rare today as it was then. Bourque did it 5 times. He was the premier defenseman during a big logjam of HHOF talent and a bigger logjam than Lidstrom had to face once he started winning his Norris trophies. Say what you want, but it did take him a bit longer to become the best defenseman in the NHL. Losing to an old MacInnis in 1999 is an example.

I'm not sure I have Lidstrom as the best Wing in that 1997-'02 Cup reign either. There are three of them with a good case. Yzerman, Fedorov and Lidstrom. I think Lidstrom is 3rd in that mix. The other two were long gone once the other deep runs happened in Detroit. Again, this isn't to knock Lidstrom, but if you asked who was more important during the Bruins long runs say, in 1988, 1990 and 1991 it would be Bourque without even thinking.

I think people get revisionist when thinking of Lidstrom at times. But in reality what could he do that Bourque couldn't do as good or better?

Defensively - Edge to Lidstrom, but very, very slight edge
Offensively - Bourque takes this easier than Lidstrom does the defensive part
Physical - Bourque easily
Hart Trophy finishes - Bourque easily again
All-star nods - Bourque and he generally had a harder peer to go against than Scott Niedermayer
Playoffs - Maybe a slight edge to Lidstrom because you have to take into account that Bourque had the Bruins and sometimes his best center was Janney while Yzerman and Fedorov were down the middle in Detroit.
Longevity - Bourque. Elite from start to finish. Lidstrom was just merely "good" at the beginning for a few years. Bourque has too many more years where he was elite. He just does.

If you want to Cup count, you give it to Lidstrom. But it isn't as if Bourque was a shrinking violet in the postseason either. Sometimes he was the star of the show.

With comparisons like this they aren't fair to be honest, because you have to downgrade a player like Lidstrom. It reminds me of the rare time you have to downgrade Howe or Orr or Lemieux when comparing them to Gretzky. But at the end of the day Gretzky was just simply better than all of them.

I think most of us are fair when it comes to Lidstrom. Most of us will admit he had a better career than Potvin because of his longevity even if we take Potvin at his peak. Most would admit Robinson is beneath him as well as Kelly or Coffey. But many regard Bourque as the #2 defenseman of all-time. It isn't that Lidstrom isn't an all-time great, it's just that when people continue to pound the pavement finding a way for him to be higher it just isn't possible in my eyes.

And I do give credit for Lidstrom winning the Gold medal, so long as people recognize the 1984 and 1987 Canada Cups.