Rod Langway 1982-1984 question.

[tarheelhockey]

Yes, there were discussions about the very big differences between Coffey and Langway, which I've already mentioned. But voters were not voting for Langway at the expense of better defensemen (or who they thought were better defensemen).

The problem with this subject is that there are now multiple generations of hockey fans who don't have any knowledge of Rod Langway, and they're trying to figure out how he won two Norris Trophies. But, many people at the time thought Langway was the NHL's best defenseman, he could have easily won more than two Norris Trophies and it wouldn't have been controversial.

People are free to disagree with Langway winning, but it's not accurate that most people thought Bourque, Potvin, etc. were better at the time. This wasn't the Potvin of '77, nor the Bourque of '88. But it was Langway at his absolute best.

I think there are a few different interpretations on the table in this conversation, and they're getting conflated.

One thing that's absolutely clear is that there was no consensus view at the time. There were competing opinions, so portraying any of them as the dominant view is going to be a revisionist stance.

That said, there were certain debates which definitely did dominate the conversation at the time. That much is clear and easily proven. To wit:

Jim Matheson, Mar 15 1984
"What does Paul Coffey have to do to get some recognition as the NHL's best defenceman?" asked [Gus] Badali. "I keep hearing Ray Bourque. Denis Potvin. Rod Langway. Are they having the year Coffey is?"

Not if goals and assists are the criteria, as they usually are when the voting is taken for the Norris Trophy. Remember Doug Wilson two years ago? Randy Carlyle three years back?

Steve Simmons, Mar 28 1984
... it seems Potvin and Bourque may cancel themselves out on the ballot, leaving a two-man race between Langway and Coffey.

... [Paul Reinhart] "There are many questions the voters have to face," the Flame said. "Do you vote for the best defenceman, or do you vote for the player who is more valuable to his team. It's a difficult question. It's going to depend on each individual voter."

The irony here is that Langway and Coffey are more one-dimensional defencemen than the other two logical candidates. Both Potvin and Bourque are well versed in both ends of the rink, as comfortable with the puck as without it, as capable killing a penalty in front of their end as playing the point on the power play.

Ron Cobb, Nov 18 1984
The Langway vs. Coffey argument is as lively as any in the NHL. Each player is the opposite of the other. Langway is the shining example of a defensive defenseman. Coffey is the shining example of an offensive defenseman.

Unfortunately, any Langway vs Coffey debate is doomed to frustration because of a disagreement over the definition of defenseman. There are some who don't consider Coffey a strong candidate for the Norris Trophy... because his emphasis on offense detracts from his defense. These people would give the award to Coffey only if the job description was "offenseman" rather than "defenseman.

In this corner, the vote for the Norris Trophy went reluctantly last season to Langway, but not because of any hang-up over the definition of defenseman. The feeling was simply that Langway was the defenseman you'd most like to have on your team.

This season, the Langway-Coffey debate may be academic. The hunch here is that the Norris winner will be a player who combines the best of both worlds, offensively and defensively -- Ray Bourque of the Boston Bruins.

Rod Langway quoted at the NHL Awards banquet, Jun 5 1984
"That I won shows the media has changed its thinking in the list couple of years. They voted for a defensive specialist, whereas in years past it was an Orr type or a Denis Potvin. The talk comparing my style and Paul's is the way it was when Potvin and Larry Robinson were going head to head."

Dick Kerr, Nov 20 1984
"There's a school of thought in the NHL that the Oilers would have to have the best team defensive record in the league in order for Coffey to win the Norris Trophy as the league's most outstanding defenceman."

John Korobanik, April 4 1985
It will also hinder [Coffey's] efforts with some voters. Defence, they say, means defence; as in look after your own end of the ice; prevent goals. It does not mean offence.

It's the old argument: does the Norris Trophy go to the best defensive defenceman or the best offensive defenceman?

The last two years it went to Rod Langway of Washington for his defence. Which means it's time the sheep-like voters swung to the offence and that puts Coffey front and centre.
...
The key word is "all-around". Under those guidelines the last time the Norris Trophy went to a suitable winner was in 1980 when Larry Robinson of Montreal Canadiens won.
...
The unfortunate part of the argument is that the propaganda for Coffey and Langway buries the contributions of more legitimate Norris Trophy candidates like Scott Stevens of Washington and Ray Bourque of Boston Bruins.

Jim Taylor Mar 18 1986
Come to think of it, it was about this time last year that Paul Coffey began messing with the minds of the voting members of the Professional Hockey Writers Association.

... the general feeling was that the writers were going to do it to him again: ignore his point production and hand Washington's Rod Langway the Norris Trophy as the league's outstanding defenceman.

It had happened the previous season, when his 40 goals an 86 assists actually seemed to work against him. He was a great scorer. Ergo, he wasn't a great defenceman. Great defencemen play defence, they don't go flying all over the ice like basketball point guards.



I think that's a fair representative sample of the boundaries of the debate at the time. It's clear that the media were conscious that they were effectively choosing not just between dissimilar players, but also between opposing concepts of what a defenseman is "supposed" to be.

At the end of the day, the results reinforce how fragmented the thinking was:

1983
Langway 24-16-12 <-- 52 votes
Howe 13-24-18 <-- 55 votes
Bourque 19-11-11

1984
Langway 37-11-9
Coffey 12-18-12
Bourque 9-20-15
Potvin 4-19-9

1985
Coffey 32-19-6
Bourque 12-20-16
Langway 8-10-19
Wilson 9-11-6


Those are not the product of a clearly decisive cultural shift. You're right that the writers didn't suddenly self-organize and flock in the same direction. All three of these years featured tight races and a lot of disagreement. Some of that disagreement was about the nature of what it means to be a "defenseman", some was about the parameters of what the Norris Trophy represents, and some was simple disagreement about who was the better player between the handful of leading contenders.


TL;DR

- There really was not some sudden flock-like shift in voters' behavior. If anything, they became rather fragmented during this era.

- There really was a lot of disagreement about offensive vs defensive defensemen, and what the Norris Trophy was meant to represent. This disagreement defined the Norris races of the mid-80s.

- Some observers pointed out, significantly, that the above dynamics forced voters into two opposing camps which squeezed out middle-ground candidates like Bourque and Potvin.

- The voting totals and written record are quite clear that Langway, Coffey, Bourque, Potvin, Howe, and to a lesser extent Stevens and Robinson were the favorites during this era and there wasn't much separation between them (see note on 1983 voting totals above).

 

[LightningStorm]

In my thread about the ill advised choice of Goring over Potvin and Bossy for the 1981 Conn Smythe, this post is spot on about a general pattern of voting in the early-mid 1980's. Basically, some of the award choices that aged poorly were as a reaction against this higher scoring era by old time 1950's voters who wanted it to still be the 50's. This led to some puzzling choices of some of the more gritty, defensive blue collar players winning awards. Examples include the topic of the thread, Messier winning the 1984 CS over Gretzky, and both of Langway's Norris wins. Some of these votes were more reasonable than others. For example, I think a reasonable case can be made for Langway over Howe in 1983 and Messier over Gretzky in 1984, despite me disagreeing with both.

As has been mentioned a lot in this thread, there was a middle ground rather than the extreme overcorrection of Carlyle winning the 1981 Norris. This overcorrection manifested with instances where voting reflected old school 1950's gritty hockey to the exclusion of the present day 1980's high flying hockey, rather than in conjunction with it, which players like Potvin, Bourque and Howe fit. It's also why I don't consider Messier's 1984 CS as bad, since he also could play both styles.

 

[wetcoast]

It absolutely happened.

There was considerably backlash over the 1981 and 1982 winners that an award that was supposed to be about defending was becoming a 'most points' trophy.

Then in 1983 you have a guy in Paul Coffey who is even worse at defending than the 81 and 82 winners leading defenders in points and nobody wants to vote for him, and instead of just voting for the best all-around defender which was Mark Howe they over-compensated and voted for Rod Langway who was the best pure defensive defender.

Voters also love narratives and that was Washington's big turnaround season and Langway's part in that was one of the big stories of the year. But the problem with that is that 82-83 was Mark Howe's first year in Philly, too, and they improved even more defensively than the Capitals did.

There is absolutely no way that Rod Langway was so much better at defense than Bourque/Howe/Potvin - three of the best all-around defenders to ever play - that it made up for a 40 or 50 point offensive differential in those years.

Those votes became a binary thing between the two guys at opposite ends of the spectrum and the best players in the middle got ignored.

Agree with this and there was quite a bit of discussion of people voting strictly for points with Carlyle and Wilson and points were okay when it was Potvin, Robinson and Orr the 13 years previous to Carlyle and Wilson.

 

[57special]

It was a different era, when slower, strong players could get away with open ice blind side hits, clutching and grabbing, and endless crosschecks. Langway was a horse, and vg defensively, but IMO was overrated.
He would be brutally exposed in today's game, whereas players like Potvin, Lapointe(as long as he gave the smokes between periods), Robinson, Bourque, and even Stevens would be fine. Certainly Coffey... he was Karlsson with way better wheels.

 

[sr edler]

I'm a bit too young to have watched Langway play at his best, so I really don't have that strong of an opinion either way on any of his Norris trophies, but in general I'm not a big fan of these concerted efforts of "trying to correct" past award voting. Comes across as hobby revisionism.

I see in this thread we have a Bruins fan who would have given it to Bourque instead, despite admitting it wasn't even Bourque at his best, and also an Oilers fan who think Coffey should have won instead? Yeah.... that doesn't seem a tad bit biased at all.

There will always be award voting people disagree with. If it was up to me, we could go back a single week or so in time and not pretend Dougie Hamilton is a better D than Heiskanen or Dahlin. Or that Karlsson spent the entirety of this past season for any other purpose than individualistic stat padding. Or that Dougie Hamilton is better than Jaccob Slavin. Or, a bit further back, that Bryan McCabe was better than Tomas Kaberle.

Also, young Scott Stevens in Washington was a bit of an adventure, and not the player seen later on in Jersey.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Also, young Scott Stevens in Washington was a bit of an adventure, and not the player seen later on in Jersey.

Yeah, I had made that note upthread that if fans take a look at the Potvin video I made from the same game (as both Stevens and Langway played LD primarily, and they rarely went to their 3LD), that Stevens is - well, as you put it - an adventure...

 

[reckoning]

It was a different era, when slower, strong players could get away with open ice blind side hits, clutching and grabbing, and endless crosschecks. Langway was a horse, and vg defensively, but IMO was overrated.
He would be brutally exposed in today's game, whereas players like Potvin, Lapointe(as long as he gave the smokes between periods), Robinson, Bourque, and even Stevens would be fine. Certainly Coffey... he was Karlsson with way better wheels.

I think you're selling Langway short. He was an excellent skater, though he didn't have Coffey's blazing speed. He wasn't really clutch-and-grab, and didn't use his stick much either. The game was more physical then, but it wasn't the dead puck era. He used his size and strength more than blueliners today do, but his game was primarily based on positioning and anticipation. I think he'd be able to adapt to today's game just fine.

 

[JackSlater]

I think you're selling Langway short. He was an excellent skater, though he didn't have Coffey's blazing speed. He wasn't really clutch-and-grab, and didn't use his stick much either. The game was more physical then, but it wasn't the dead puck era. He used his size and strength more than blueliners today do, but his game was primarily based on positioning and anticipation. I think he'd be able to adapt to today's game just fine.

Yeah I don't see why Langway couldn't be at least Slavin today, in terms of impact if not exactly style. While I wouldn't give Slavin the Norris in any given year, he is awesome.

 

[The Panther]

I'm a bit too young to have watched Langway play at his best, so I really don't have that strong of an opinion either way on any of his Norris trophies, but in general I'm not a big fan of these concerted efforts of "trying to correct" past award voting. Comes across as hobby revisionism.

I see in this thread we have a Bruins fan who would have given it to Bourque instead, despite admitting it wasn't even Bourque at his best, and also an Oilers fan who think Coffey should have won instead? Yeah.... that doesn't seem a tad bit biased at all.

We're not changing the past here, just having a chat.

I mean, I mostly agree with Norris / Hart decisions too, but that doesn't mean they're all good ones. Do you think Wilson or Carlyle were the back-to-back best defencemen in the NHL?

Also, being a fan of a particular club doesn't necessarily mean you're biased in this. Assuming you were referring to me as the "Oilers fan", yes, I retro-awarded Coffey the 1984 Norris (I also said it was a "toss-up between Bourque and Coffey"), but I also took away Coffey's 1986 Norris and gave it to Mark Howe, who played for the Oilers' biggest rival.

 

[LightningStorm]

We're not changing the past here, just having a chat.

I mean, I mostly agree with Norris / Hart decisions too, but that doesn't mean they're all good ones. Do you think Wilson or Carlyle were the back-to-back best defencemen in the NHL?

Also, being a fan of a particular club doesn't necessarily mean you're biased in this. Assuming you were referring to me as the "Oilers fan", yes, I retro-awarded Coffey the 1984 Norris (I also said it was a "toss-up between Bourque and Coffey"), but I also took away Coffey's 1986 Norris and gave it to Mark Howe, who played for the Oilers' biggest rival.

Plus I find it interesting to spot certain trends of voters during an era. Which is why I linked this post of yours upthread from another thread. Norris and Conn Smythe votes from the early-mid 80's do reflect some voters being nostalgic for 1957.

I also agree with you that the trend today is that giving awards to star players mean more to the NHL marketing wise. Under the conditions of today, no way does Langway win in 1984. You have either Bourque, who played for the popular Bruins. Potvin was the captain of the recent dynasty, while Coffey was an electrifying player on the up and coming dynasty. Their games were also more marketable than that of Langway. Under these conditions, I think Potvin wins in 81, Howe in 83 and Coffey in 84.

 

[larek]

The Caps didn't make until Langway (and rookie Scott Stevens) arrived in WSH. They made it every year until Rod's final season in 92-93. On the slow side when it came to skating, but his positioning was excellent, played the body without being dirty. Not known for his offense, but scored few big goals in the playoffs, OT vs the Rangers in 90, his first goal in over a year. Great leader and great team guy.

And got alot of respect with his physical play and was t a bad fighter when he did drop the gloves - hated when he was traded

 

[tarheelhockey]

I see in this thread we have a Bruins fan who would have given it to Bourque instead, despite admitting it wasn't even Bourque at his best, and also an Oilers fan who think Coffey should have won instead? Yeah.... that doesn't seem a tad bit biased at all.

But those were very common opinions leaguewide at the time. Bourque was a finalist every year that Langway was, and Coffey was the runner-up in '84 before winning it the next two years.

The most dangerous trap here is the idea that there was any sort of consensus. "The Voters" were not a unified bloc, but a conflicted panel of writers from all over the continent who openly talked about how the choice was unusually difficult. It would be revisionist to suggest that Bourque and Coffey weren't legitimate choices.

Also, young Scott Stevens in Washington was a bit of an adventure, and not the player seen later on in Jersey.

While true, he was indeed seen as a second-tier Norris contender by the mid-80s. In 1985 he pulled 37 votes for the All Star Team and someone even gave him a first-place vote on the Norris ballot. He wasn't running with the top dogs yet, but he was in the conversation.

 

[sr edler]

But those were very common opinions leaguewide at the time. Bourque was a finalist every year that Langway was, and Coffey was the runner-up in '84 before winning it the next two years.

The most dangerous trap here is the idea that there was any sort of consensus. "The Voters" were not a unified bloc, but a conflicted panel of writers from all over the continent who openly talked about how the choice was unusually difficult. It would be revisionist to suggest that Bourque and Coffey weren't legitimate choices.

I know all of this. Now it seems you're putting words into my mouth. Where did I say there was a unified consensus Langway was the best? My point was the opposite, that most of the time it's just guys having various opinions.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I know all of this. Now it seems you're putting words into my mouth. Where did I say there was a unified consensus Langway was the best? My point was the opposite, that most of the time it's just guys having various opinions.

I didn’t say you said there was a unified consensus. I said that it’s important to keep in mind that there was not a consensus on this topic at the time.

Which is relevant to your point because you’re accusing people of fan-bias in suggesting that other candidates had a superior argument to Langway’s. Well, a lot of people at the time felt that way. Of course a fan of any given team might be most passionate his guy’s argument, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad argument.

This all relates back to the root issue, that people are unfairly “revising” Langway’s Norris wins. Well, they were controversial wins, born of a heated debate over what the Norris was really supposed to mean. Naturally there will be ongoing discussion of whether the vote produced the right winner.

 

[57special]

I think you're selling Langway short. He was an excellent skater, though he didn't have Coffey's blazing speed. He wasn't really clutch-and-grab, and didn't use his stick much either. The game was more physical then, but it wasn't the dead puck era. He used his size and strength more than blueliners today do, but his game was primarily based on positioning and anticipation. I think he'd be able to adapt to today's game just fine.

I disagree, as someone who saw him come up with Montreal. Certainly the best skater to come out of Taiwan, but that's about it. He was a decent skater, but it was certainly not a strength. The game in general was clutch and grab back then, and he did plenty of it, but Langway's deal was that he was vg positionally, with an excellent defensive hockey IQ and outstanding size and strength for the time.

At the time, a lot of people thought that him being picked was due to the old guard wanting to see an old school(i.e. pre Orr) dman picked, rather than a rushing Dman.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It was considered a travesty that if Doug Harvey played in 1982 he wouldn't even be considered for the Norris.

Just taking a quick glance, Doug Harvey was top 2 or 3 in points among defenseman over 5 or 7 year spans during his prime.

Relative to his era, he was scoring quite well for a defenseman.

 

[sr edler]

Do you think Wilson or Carlyle were the back-to-back best defencemen in the NHL?

I didn't see these guys play at their best either, but if your question is if I like offensive Ds who aren't that good defensively then, no, not really. But it might also just have been weak years where no other candidates really stood out, and sometimes various other components play a factor too, such as outside media hype. In general, I think people take these things way too seriously, and with "these things" I mean HHOF inductions and individual awards. I'm not going to let people like Elliott Friedman or such leave me sleepless at night, especially not 40-ish years after the fact.

This all relates back to the root issue, that people are unfairly “revising” Langway’s Norris wins. Well, they were controversial wins, born of a heated debate over what the Norris was really supposed to mean. Naturally there will be ongoing discussion of whether the vote produced the right winner.

Just because people cry about their favourite player not winning an award doesn't mean it's controversial. Defensive specialist can have a huge impact on their teams, and vis-a-vis, sometimes players two-way games can be way overrated. It all depends on the situation at hand.

 

[JackSlater]

I disagree, as someone who saw him come up with Montreal. Certainly the best skater to come out of Taiwan, but that's about it. He was a decent skater, but it was certainly not a strength. The game in general was clutch and grab back then, and he did plenty of it, but Langway's deal was that he was vg positionally, with an excellent defensive hockey IQ and outstanding size and strength for the time.

At the time, a lot of people thought that him being picked was due to the old guard wanting to see an old school(i.e. pre Orr) dman picked, rather than a rushing Dman.

I agree, Langway wasn't a great skater at all. I believe he started playing quite late (teens or nearly teens) so the deck was stacked against him when it comes to skating and puck skills. As you said though he was really smart and strong, and those are tremendous defensive assets. Going to the Montreal Canadiens defenceman finishing school certainly helps a lot too. Langway was a guy who stands out on the defensive end for how dominant he is when the puck comes near him.

I'll throw this out there but his wins are, in my eyes, basically akin to Slavin winning two Norris trophies today, though Langway was actually against stronger top end competition compared to this year. I'm a big Slavin fan but realistically some players combine top offence and defence.

 

[Staniowski]

Rod Langway was an extremely unusual skater, probably the strangest skater among star players I've ever seen. The only other good defenseman who was similar is the great Russian D Igor Romishevsky (who was at his best in the late '60s). Both of them look like they are just learning to skate in their 20s and 30s.

But even though Langway sometimes looks like he can barely stand up on skates, he is possibly the best one-on-one D in NHL history. It was almost impossible to beat him cleanly. When he was at his best, his skating wasn't a problem. He just wasn't a beautiful skater like Bourque, Coffey, or Hartsburg.

Langway was very smart and a great athlete (legend has it that hockey was his 3rd-best sport - he was also an NFL and MLB prospect, and attended university on football scholarship).

 

[Staniowski]

He wasn't really clutch-and-grab.

Yeah, he used his body very effectively. He wasn't a completely clean player, but he wasn't particularly dirty. There was some holding, a little interference....but he was a very serious player, he didn't take dumb penalties. He used his body very smartly.

 

[Moose Head]

My 80’s Norris trophies revised. These were my thoughts at the time as well:

80 - Robinson
81 - Potvin
82 - Wilson
83 - Howe
84 - Bourque
85 - Bourque
86 - Howe
87 - Bourque
88 - Bourque
89 - Chelios

 

[Staniowski]

My 80’s Norris trophies revised. These were my thoughts at the time as well:

80 - Robinson
81 - Potvin
82 - Wilson
83 - Howe
84 - Bourque
85 - Bourque
86 - Howe
87 - Bourque
88 - Bourque
89 - Chelios

Yeah, poor Doug Wilson gets thrown into these discussions, when people are really going after Carlyle and Langway. I think most people, now, have no idea if Wilson was any good defensively or not.

Wilson and Langway were the only two star defensemen (at least among those being talked about here, and not including Fetisov and Kasatonov) who were at their best around '81 to '84.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Just because people cry about their favourite player not winning an award doesn't mean it's controversial.

I feel like I’ve said this a couple of times and it’s just being brushed off — the Norris races of the early/mid 80s WERE controversial. That’s not in dispute, it’s clearly captured in the record and in living memory.

In particular, look closely at the 1983 ballot:

Langway 24-16-12
Howe 13-24-18
Bourque 19-11-11
Wilson 2-4-7

Howe actually had 3 more votes than Langway. And while it’s not unusual for a finalist to have nearly as many 1st place votes as the winner, it is unusual for that to happen with the third place finisher as Bourque did here. A majority of the voters disagreed with Langway as the first place finisher. I have to imagine this was one of the closest three-way races ever.

Clearly there was controversy at the time of the vote, so characterizing the ongoing discussion of that controversy as “revisionist” is inaccurate.

 

[sr edler]

I'll throw this out there but his wins are, in my eyes, basically akin to Slavin winning two Norris trophies today, though Langway was actually against stronger top end competition compared to this year. I'm a big Slavin fan but realistically some players combine top offence and defence.

Slavin winning a Norris wouldn't be any weirder IMO, in terms of one-dimensionality, than Karlsson winning the 22–23 Norris. I would personally prefer Slavin in that particular comparison, because I just think it's more conducive to winning games (I'm not talking about prime Ottawa version Karlsson here, just to make that clear). Of course ideally you would want a top tier two-way horse, like say prime Victor Hedman or Duncan Keith, in front of any of those two examples, but it's not always these players show up at the top of their games over a whole 82-game schedule, because I would figure it's a pretty draining exercise. Keith seldom did that, but turned it on for the playoffs instead, same with Hedman most of the time.

I feel like I’ve said this a couple of times and it’s just being brushed off — the Norris races of the early/mid 80s WERE controversial. That’s not in dispute, it’s clearly captured in the record and in living memory.

In particular, look closely at the 1983 ballot:

Langway 24-16-12
Howe 13-24-18
Bourque 19-11-11
Wilson 2-4-7

Howe actually had 3 more votes than Langway. And while it’s not unusual for a finalist to have nearly as many 1st place votes as the winner, it is unusual for that to happen with the third place finisher as Bourque did here. A majority of the voters disagreed with Langway as the first place finisher. I have to imagine this was one of the closest three-way races ever.

Clearly there was controversy at the time of the vote, so characterizing the ongoing discussion of that controversy as “revisionist” is inaccurate.

Perhaps we just have different interpretations of what constitutes a controversy. 10–11 was a really close three-way race (Lids, Weber, Chara), plus Visnovsky (of all people) took home 20 (!) first place votes. I don't remember that being particularly controversial, outside of the fact that some people complained about Lidström getting some reputation votes.

 

[Moose Head]

Yeah, poor Doug Wilson gets thrown into these discussions, when people are really going after Carlyle and Langway. I think most people, now, have no idea if Wilson was any good defensively or not.

Wilson and Langway were the only two star defensemen (at least among those being talked about here, and not including Fetisov and Kasatonov) who were at their best around '81 to '84.

Imo the closest comparison to Wilson was late 80’s/early 90’s Al Macinnis. I don’t think too many people would have been upset if Al had won in 89. That was very similar to Wilson’s 82 season.