Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[Hockey Outsider]

I noticed you made a post suggesting Harvey should be ranked above Shore, but there was no comparison between them and Bourque. It seems like the agenda on this forum is to keep Bourque 4th and I just don't see it that way. Bourque was better than both harvey and shore, and if he was given a dynasty team to work with his whole career, really it wouldnt even be close.

What agenda? I have Bourque higher than 4th.

I haven't had time to write a detailed comparison of Bourque and Harvey/Shore. In fact, the two comparisons I posted earlier (Shore-Harvey and Bourque-Lidstrom) were each a few years old (updated as necessary), so it's not like I wrote them from scratch specifically for this project.

I'd encourage you to write a detailed comparison of Bourque and Harvey and/or Shore if you feel strongly about it.

 

[Rhiessan71]

If you are going to consider these years the same as lidstroms pre-97 period which many of u dont consider as elite/peak years you probably will have to do the same with these years of bourque.

No one has said or should say that Bourque's '97-'01 years were his elite or best.
I think it should be pretty obvious that his best/elite years were the ones where he was an all-star and more than a point per game player for 15 straight years leading up to '97.

 

[BraveCanadian]

No one has said or should say that Bourque's '97-'01 years were his elite or best.
I think it should be pretty obvious that his best/elite years were the ones where he was an all-star and more than a point per game player for 15 straight years leading up to '97.

The point being that Lidstrom had weaker years at the beginning of his career whereas Bourques are near the end of his career.

Lidstrom has narrowed the perceived longevity gap substantially by continuing to be one of the top defenseman in the league through his late 30s and now early 40s. Heck, you can even say he was arguably the best player of the decade for the 00's.

He has been a top defenseman in the league since around '96 which is ~ 15 years as well.

 

[thehangover]

No one has said or should say that Bourque's '97-'01 years were his elite or best.
I think it should be pretty obvious that his best/elite years were the ones where he was an all-star and more than a point per game player for 15 straight years leading up to '97.

Do you still think these seasons should be considered as "elite"? In case not Borques incredible longeivity as an elite player will take a little turn.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The point being that Lidstrom had weaker years at the beginning of his career whereas Bourques are near the end of his career.

Lidstrom has narrowed the perceived longevity gap substantially by continuing to be one of the top defenseman in the league through his late 30s and now early 40s. Heck, you can even say he was arguably the best player of the decade for the 00's.

He has been a top defenseman in the league since around '96 which is ~ 15 years as well.

I was only responding to Thehangover's thinking that people consider Bourque's 97-01 years as elite when they/we don't.

On that note though...can you, in good conscience, rank Lidstrom's 15 best over Bourque's 15. Especially with Lidstrom's 04 season looming, the only year he was in the same boat as Bourque, being bereft of strong D-partners. He had the worst season of his career?


Now don't get me wrong here either. I would not go so far as to say that Bourque never had some good partners. Personally I was always impressed with Glen Wesley but again, that was only for 7 years and Glen certainly wasn't on the same level as Coffey, Murphy, Chelios or Rafalski over 17 years.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Do you still think these seasons should be considered as "elite"? In case not Borques incredible longeivity as an elite player will take a little turn.

How so, we're talking about a player that played 22 seasons, 15 of them of the elite level and 7 that were good.
Not a single average or below average season among them.

Lidstrom on the other hand, we're looking at what, 12 elite years, a couple of good years and a couple of average years over 19 to date.
What's more, Lidstrom has one of those average seasons smack dab in the middle of his prime.

But by all means, please name me other players that were elite for 15 years. Good luck with that.


I mean we're talking about a guy that his lowest scoring season was 43 points in 22 years and finished negative in the +/- column only twice.
And that 43 points was only because it was the 48 game strike shortened season of '95.

 

[danincanada]

Please forgive me for not posting sooner; busy day yesterday.

Its not about how many youngsters play hockey but how many hours each youngster plays, how much time is spent skating and handling the puck and how many hours of quality coaching the youngster gets.

True elite talents today that you cannot name. The ones drafted in 2001 are now twenty-seven. Work it backwards and find examples of players drafted beginning in 2001 until 2007 who can compare to Bourque, Lidstrom, Fetisov, Chelios, Robinson, Potvin when they were between 22-27.

I cannot come-up with any.

Hold on one second here, are you questioning the skating and puck handling skills of young players of today? Creativity is being held back at times due to parity but these guys can certainly skate and pass the puck as well as ever. They are certainly well coached and think the game at an advanced level as well.

Players like Doughty, Keith, Weber, Suter, Green, Karlsson, Letang, and Kulikov are a lot better than you are giving them credit for. Then you have Chara and Pronger who have size, to go along with great athletic ability for that size, that was simply unheard of even 30 years ago. It's just harder to stand out when everyone is so well coached and nearly every player has the skill sets we see today. Go watch a game from even the early 80s and you will see many of those NHLers lack the skills every NHL player has today. The passing is not nearly as crisp, there are far more awkward and slow skaters than now and overall the game was not played with the precision and speed of today. It's almost like you don't think the game has grown or progressed over time. It has and that has had an impact on how you view the elite's of today.

The NHL both Potvin and Bourque walked into out of junior was not what it is today. The league was missing a whole nations worth of world class players (Russia) and the US and Europe were not producing the same quality of players they are now. If someone like Doughty got to start out in those times you would be a lot more impressed by him. You take a lack of domination by these young players as a sign of them not being great players but that's simply not the case.

We know hockey has spread and the US, Europe and Russia can now all develop top end talent just like Canada. We know hockey has grown and more people are playing it now. 1,600,000 and a lot of them do train seriously and get lots of ice-time, some year round. To pretend we are no longer developing elite athletes because there aren't enough outdoor rinks to go around is laughable when you consider all the advancements in training and facilities that has taken place.

 

[danincanada]

I was only responding to Thehangover's thinking that people consider Bourque's 97-01 years as elite when they/we don't.

On that note though...can you, in good conscience, rank Lidstrom's 15 best over Bourque's 15. Especially with Lidstrom's 04 season looming, the only year he was in the same boat as Bourque, being bereft of strong D-partners. He had the worst season of his career?

You are really going to cling on to that '04 season now, aren't you? You obviously didn't watch back then because you are just assuming he had a horrible year without knowing what actually happened.

Lidstrom was terrific defensively that season. If you check his TGA stats you will see this as well. It was an off year for him overall, obviously. He was definitely snake bitten offensively and in the goal scoring department. Schneider seemed to get lots of second assists where Lidstrom had passed the puck to him. It was just that kind of season. The top defender only got 58 points to Lidstrom's 38 so it wasn't exactly a banner year for offensive production from the blueline. I'd still rank him in the top 5 overall that season.

You can rank Lidstrom's 15 best years over Bourque's because the playoffs are part of the equation as well. Lidstrom won 4 Cups and a Conn Smythe and played better defensively than Bourque come playoff time. You can assume Bourque would do the same if in Lidstrom's situation all you want but fact is it didn't happen.

 

[thehangover]

Lidstrom definitely didnt have a couple of seasons as an nhl avarage defenceman. thats false.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You can assume Bourque would do the same if in Lidstrom's situation all you want but fact is it didn't happen.

Don't have to "assume" anything, it DID happen and Bourque was 40 years old to boot!
Same situation with Bourque in his prime...forget about it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Youth Hockey

Please forgive me for not posting sooner; busy day yesterday.



Hold on one second here, are you questioning the skating and puck handling skills of young players of today? Creativity is being held back at times due to parity but these guys can certainly skate and pass the puck as well as ever. They are certainly well coached and think the game at an advanced level as well.

Players like Doughty, Keith, Weber, Suter, Green, Karlsson, Letang, and Kulikov are a lot better than you are giving them credit for. Then you have Chara and Pronger who have size, to go along with great athletic ability for that size, that was simply unheard of even 30 years ago. It's just harder to stand out when everyone is so well coached and nearly every player has the skill sets we see today. Go watch a game from even the early 80s and you will see many of those NHLers lack the skills every NHL player has today. The passing is not nearly as crisp, there are far more awkward and slow skaters than now and overall the game was not played with the precision and speed of today. It's almost like you don't think the game has grown or progressed over time. It has and that has had an impact on how you view the elite's of today.

The NHL both Potvin and Bourque walked into out of junior was not what it is today. The league was missing a whole nations worth of world class players (Russia) and the US and Europe were not producing the same quality of players they are now. If someone like Doughty got to start out in those times you would be a lot more impressed by him. You take a lack of domination by these young players as a sign of them not being great players but that's simply not the case.

We know hockey has spread and the US, Europe and Russia can now all develop top end talent just like Canada. We know hockey has grown and more people are playing it now. 1,600,000 and a lot of them do train seriously and get lots of ice-time, some year round. To pretend we are no longer developing elite athletes because there aren't enough outdoor rinks to go around is laughable when you consider all the advancements in training and facilities that has taken place.

We were talking youth hockey. The amount of time that kids actually skate or handle the puck. Typical game is slotted for an hour but play lasts 32-36 minutes, about 2/3 is running time. A team rotating 2-3 lines and defense pairings, two goalies means each youngster skates 10 - 15 minutes, one puck yields maybe 1-2 minutes of puck handling.Practice = one maybe two a week, slotted for one hour. Works out to 45-60 minutes after Zamboni time. Well organized with one puck plus extras per youngster, six skill stations teaching various skills is very effective but does not often happen since getting enough adult or older volunteers rarely happens.

Europe producing elite talent. Then there should be a reciprocal flow of talent in training between NA and Europe. This is not happening as you portray it. Chara and Kulikov finished their training in the CHL. The leading Russian prospects for the 2012 draft are playing in the CHL so the others back in Russia are not benefiting as much. The "Outlaw Leagues" - Midget AA,etc connected with private schools are drawing European and American even Mexican youngsters. European kids come over to play in the summer leagues, staying with relatives and family friends in Canada or the USA. Within NA there is a reciprocal flow between Canada and the USA, Junior and school levels. Do not have evidence of NA youngsters going to Europe.

Last 10 NHL entry drafts. Out of 36 ALL Star slots, no 2004-05, only 6 slots went spread over 5 players went to 2001+ draftees. In the 10 years after being drafted Denis Potvin and Ray Bourque generated almost three times as many AST selections between the two of them. Bourque and Potvin also generated multiple Norris Trophies each while your group has one between them.That is why Ray Bourque and Denis Potvin are Top 10 All Time and why players that you list will not make the list.

 

[overpass]

Jim Coleman's article is an interesting tongue in cheek piece - obviously he was not impressed by the freelancers efforts. Some nuggets especially his comments about Howie Morenz and his skating. Made a point of including King Clancy's opinion but avoided Conn Smythe or listing any Leafs.Coleman also went out of his way to have fun with the concept of best or most, citing the opinion aspect and looking a qualities as diverse as thrilling, versatile, stylist, powerful, hard hitting etc.

Conn Smythe talking about other league teams was usually a pot and kettle scenario.

Coleman wrote a piece in 1958 in which he said he would take Maurice Richard over Gordie Howe, because a team of Howes would win every game but play in empty arenas. A team of Richards would pack the house every night. So Coleman probably preferred exciting players in general.

His rankings are only one man's opinion, of course, but I think evaluations from people with his experience of hockey history are valuable. He saw both Shore and Orr and can compare them.

I don't think that Shore's improvement over his career has been appreciated enough either. See Coleman's comments on his obsession with hockey and his drive to perfect his game. Shore and Lidstrom, while very different in temperament, may have been similar in that they improved a lot as players during their NHL careers.

 

[overpass]

I recently thought of an interesting "bias" in the present group of players that shows if we try to break down the primary quality (absolutely not their only quality, but rather their absolute best quality) of these ten defensemen into either offensive or defensive contribution. It's a very crude breakdown, but I find it quite interesting.

I would say that to the players with their primary quality being their offense I would without doubt place Bobby Orr, Eddie Shore and Red Kelly.

A little more towards the middle ground, but still probably more hailed for their offense I would place Ray Bourque, Denis Potvin, Larry Robinson and probably Viacheslav Fetisov.

I'm a bit on the fence about Doug Harvey and Nicklas Lidström. The most common trait mentioned about Lidström is usually his non-physical defensive play, but he is also a very gifted offensive defenseman.

There's only one player who without doubt strikes me as someone who primarily is hailed as a defensive player: Chris Chelios.

Chelios was more of an offensive player in his early career, and it's easy to see him for the player he was during the tail end of his career. I would still say his primary quality was always his defensive play.

Please criticize my assessment, but respect that it is crude. We all know that it is easier to quantify and determine offensive contribution. We see the same pattern on the forward side aswell, where it's even harder to appreciate defensive contribution. I think this phenomenon is more interesting on the defenseman side though as the defenseman has more obvious defensive functions.

Is it required for a top 10 defender to also contribute greatly to the offensive effort? I would assume that the first bonafide defensive defenseman we'll see in this project is someone of Scott Stevens, Earl Seibert or Tim Horton.

I would add Larry Robinson to Chelios as a primarily defensive player. See the posted polls of NHL coaches, where they repeatedly voted Robinson as the best defensive defenceman in the league.

Regarding your overall point, most of these ten players were elite defensively. Even players you listed as primarily offensive were among the best defensively. I think you need both great offensive and defensive play to crack the top five. In future rounds we'll certainly see more one dimensional players, both offensively and defensively.

 

[Rhiessan71]

We were talking youth hockey. The amount of time that kids actually skate or handle the puck. Typical game is slotted for an hour but play lasts 32-36 minutes, about 2/3 is running time. A team rotating 2-3 lines and defense pairings, two goalies means each youngster skates 10 - 15 minutes, one puck yields maybe 1-2 minutes of puck handling.Practice = one maybe two a week, slotted for one hour. Works out to 45-60 minutes after Zamboni time. Well organized with one puck plus extras per youngster, six skill stations teaching various skills is very effective but does not often happen since getting enough adult or older volunteers rarely happens.

Europe producing elite talent. Then there should be a reciprocal flow of talent in training between NA and Europe. This is not happening as you portray it. Chara and Kulikov finished their training in the CHL. The leading Russian prospects for the 2012 draft are playing in the CHL so the others back in Russia are not benefiting as much. The "Outlaw Leagues" - Midget AA,etc connected with private schools are drawing European and American even Mexican youngsters. European kids come over to play in the summer leagues, staying with relatives and family friends in Canada or the USA. Within NA there is a reciprocal flow between Canada and the USA, Junior and school levels. Do not have evidence of NA youngsters going to Europe.

Last 10 NHL entry drafts. Out of 36 ALL Star slots, no 2004-05, only 6 slots went spread over 5 players went to 2001+ draftees. In the 10 years after being drafted Denis Potvin and Ray Bourque generated almost three times as many AST selections between the two of them. Bourque and Potvin also generated multiple Norris Trophies each while your group has one between them.That is why Ray Bourque and Denis Potvin are Top 10 All Time and why players that you list will not make the list.

To be fair 1958, the better kids ie:the ones who's parents can afford to have them in Rep/All-star are practicing in the 2-3 range usually BUT they are also running 4 full lines and 3 set of D in games.

Either way though, I think you're absolutely right in the overall argument.
There prolly are more kids playing actual organized hockey today but there are also less kids in general playing.

Going back 30 years when I was 10, every kid I knew that played House league and Rep/All-star would also spend hours upon hours at park rinks inbetween and there were plenty of kids that were very good on those local outdoor rinks that didn't play any organised hockey at all. And in the summer when there was no real organised ice hockey, a lot of kids played organised ball hockey and everyone played street hockey.
I don't even remember the last time I saw kids playing hockey in the streets or in parking lots

Then when Highschool came along, half of the players would come from the kids that couldn't afford to and never even played organised hockey before. Their vast hours on the local outdoor rinks had honed their skating, stickhandling and especially their creatively very well indeed. Sure, they all needed to be taught better defense and systems but you sure as hell didn't have to teach them what to do with the puck, handle the puck or how to go to the net heh.
How often does that happen anymore either?

How many kids aren't getting into the system anymore because of money and especially lack of other options?

I know for a fact I wouldn't of made Junior B without those thousands of hours at the park rinks in the winters and the streets and parking lots in the summers. All that AND playing 2 games and 2-3 practices a week in organised hockey from age 8 till 15.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Oct. 24, 1968. Harvey 2 - Orr1

I recently thought of an interesting "bias" in the present group of players that shows if we try to break down the primary quality (absolutely not their only quality, but rather their absolute best quality) of these ten defensemen into either offensive or defensive contribution. It's a very crude breakdown, but I find it quite interesting.

I would say that to the players with their primary quality being their offense I would without doubt place Bobby Orr, Eddie Shore and Red Kelly.

A little more towards the middle ground, but still probably more hailed for their offense I would place Ray Bourque, Denis Potvin, Larry Robinson and probably Viacheslav Fetisov.

I'm a bit on the fence about Doug Harvey and Nicklas Lidström. The most common trait mentioned about Lidström is usually his non-physical defensive play, but he is also a very gifted offensive defenseman.

There's only one player who without doubt strikes me as someone who primarily is hailed as a defensive player: Chris Chelios.

Chelios was more of an offensive player in his early career, and it's easy to see him for the player he was during the tail end of his career. I would still say his primary quality was always his defensive play.

Please criticize my assessment, but respect that it is crude. We all know that it is easier to quantify and determine offensive contribution. We see the same pattern on the forward side aswell, where it's even harder to appreciate defensive contribution. I think this phenomenon is more interesting on the defenseman side though as the defenseman has more obvious defensive functions.

Is it required for a top 10 defender to also contribute greatly to the offensive effort? I would assume that the first bonafide defensive defenseman we'll see in this project is someone of Scott Stevens, Earl Seibert or Tim Horton.

Very good observations.

Another valuable skill is the ability to quickly shift from one important quality to another.

The first NHL match-up between a 43 year old Doug Harvey and a 20 year old Bobby Orr:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19680031

Playing with the Blues coached by Scotty Bowman, Doug Harvey focused on defense, mentoring a collection of former minor league defensemen and a few younger ones like the Plagers with limited potential.

The team went into the Boston Garden to play the Bruins. They played an excellent defensive game limiting Boston to 28 shots and one goal by Bobby Orr. Late in the game, missing Al Arbour, gone with a misconduct Doug Harvey revived old offensive skills leading to two quick goals by the Blues and a surprising 2 - 1 victory.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Money Issue

To be fair 1958, the better kids ie:the ones who's parents can afford to have them in Rep/All-star are practicing in the 2-3 range usually BUT they are also running 4 full lines and 3 set of D in games.

Either way though, I think you're absolutely right in the overall argument.
There prolly are more kids playing actual organized hockey today but there are also less kids in general playing.

Going back 30 years when I was 10, every kid I knew that played House league and Rep/All-star would also spend hours upon hours at park rinks inbetween and there were plenty of kids that were very good on those local outdoor rinks that didn't play any organised hockey at all. And in the summer when there was no real organised ice hockey, a lot of kids played organised ball hockey and everyone played street hockey.
I don't even remember the last time I saw kids playing hockey in the streets or in parking lots

Then when Highschool came along, half of the players would come from the kids that couldn't afford to and never even played organised hockey before. Their vast hours on the local outdoor rinks had honed their skating, stickhandling and especially their creatively very well indeed. Sure, they all needed to be taught better defense and systems but you sure as hell didn't have to teach them what to do with the puck, handle the puck or how to go to the net heh.
How often does that happen anymore either?

How many kids aren't getting into the system anymore because of money and especially lack of other options?

I know for a fact I wouldn't of made Junior B without those thousands of hours at the park rinks in the winters and the streets and parking lots in the summers. All that AND playing 2 games and 2-3 practices a week in organised hockey from age 8 till 15.

The money issue is possible to overcome with a bit of research and effort in any part of Canada. Various foundations, non-profits, sponsors, etc are involved at the local level to provide access to hockey opportunities.

Biggest obstacle is time. Growing up schools, community centers, multiple rinks and facilities were within a few minutes walk from home. We were rarely driven or accompanied by parents to practices or games within our zone. Today such immediate access is very rare.

Yes carpooling works but the problem does not change much. You still have situations where the youngsters spend more time traveling to play than actually playing.

Thank you for the kind comments.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The money issue is possible to overcome with a bit of research and effort in any part of Canada. Various foundations, non-profits, sponsors, etc are involved at the local level to provide access to hockey opportunities.

Biggest obstacle is time. Growing up schools, community centers, multiple rinks and facilities were within a few minutes walk from home. We were rarely driven or accompanied by parents to practices or games within our zone. Today such immediate access is very rare.

Yes carpooling works but the problem does not change much. You still have situations where the youngsters spend more time traveling to play than actually playing.

Thank you for the kind comments.

And hey, don't forget, there's no age limit on the outdoor rinks. You're playing against guys anywhere from 10 to even 50 years old.

We had this one kid in highschool that came in as a freshman. Trying out for the team was the first time he had ever skated on an indoor rink.
Here's a 14 year old kid that was used to playing against like 10 or more guys at the same time of all ages on uneven and usually bumpy, snow covered ice to beautiful indoor ice and only having to beat 5 guys.
He was like a kid in a candy store out there and was our best player that year, the best player in our district in his sophomore year and was starting to draw scouts foaming at the mouth.
Unfortunately him, his sister and their mother were killed by a drunk driver the following summer

Would of loved to have seen how far he went.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Whoa whoa back up the truck a second.
Are you saying that Lidstrom's team level and circumstances in '04 dropped down closer to what Bourque had for the majority of his career and that Lidstrom didn't look like an all-time great because of it...interesting.


Without meaning to, you just helped to emphasize what every Bourque>Lidstrom supporter has been saying since day 1.
Thanks

Put Bourque in Lidstrom's situation, he wins a Cup.
Put Lidstrom in Bourque's situation and he has one of the worst seasons of his career.
Very interesting.

We are talking about a statistical scoring dip, the evidence for individual weaker defensive play is much harder to come by and most of it is very subjective.

Neither Bourque or Lidstrom were in each others exact situations and to go there with an open mind about things is one thing but to already know all the answers before you look at it would make it kind of pointless don't you think?

I also didn't realize that we had supporters or backers of certain players this isn't the ATD.

Are you saying that you made your list and are not looking at all the arguments brought forth? It sure sounds like it from some of the things you say in your posts.

I for one have changed my mind on the order of my top 20 several times now.

The reality is that the separation between all of the 5 main prominent guys careers isn't really all that much.

 

[danincanada]

Don't have to "assume" anything, it DID happen and Bourque was 40 years old to boot!
Same situation with Bourque in his prime...forget about it.

Just because he won a cup on a stacked Avs team once is what it is...you can't assume anything else after that or we could play that game all day long.

As a side note, Bourque never encountered a "Cup Hangover" or an excuse to rest on his laurels. That does tend to affect some players next season or even careers. Some players don't have the regular seasons they are capable because they know their real focus is on getting into the playoffs to win a Cup. Early 80s Potvin might be an example of this.

 

[danincanada]

We were talking youth hockey. The amount of time that kids actually skate or handle the puck. Typical game is slotted for an hour but play lasts 32-36 minutes, about 2/3 is running time. A team rotating 2-3 lines and defense pairings, two goalies means each youngster skates 10 - 15 minutes, one puck yields maybe 1-2 minutes of puck handling.Practice = one maybe two a week, slotted for one hour. Works out to 45-60 minutes after Zamboni time. Well organized with one puck plus extras per youngster, six skill stations teaching various skills is very effective but does not often happen since getting enough adult or older volunteers rarely happens.

Europe producing elite talent. Then there should be a reciprocal flow of talent in training between NA and Europe. This is not happening as you portray it. Chara and Kulikov finished their training in the CHL. The leading Russian prospects for the 2012 draft are playing in the CHL so the others back in Russia are not benefiting as much. The "Outlaw Leagues" - Midget AA,etc connected with private schools are drawing European and American even Mexican youngsters. European kids come over to play in the summer leagues, staying with relatives and family friends in Canada or the USA. Within NA there is a reciprocal flow between Canada and the USA, Junior and school levels. Do not have evidence of NA youngsters going to Europe.

Last 10 NHL entry drafts. Out of 36 ALL Star slots, no 2004-05, only 6 slots went spread over 5 players went to 2001+ draftees. In the 10 years after being drafted Denis Potvin and Ray Bourque generated almost three times as many AST selections between the two of them. Bourque and Potvin also generated multiple Norris Trophies each while your group has one between them.That is why Ray Bourque and Denis Potvin are Top 10 All Time and why players that you list will not make the list.

Kids are still learning the essentials in youth hockey. Then this huge group of young people are being weeded out so the ones with the most natural ability advance. I don't have an issue with Europeans or Americans coming to Canada to hone their skills and strive to play in the NHL if that is what they choose. It still results in a deeper talent pool overall.

Again, what you bring up is Bourque and Potvin dominating their peers. I contend that their is a deeper pool of elite players now so none of them really stand out. Do you think Bourque was much better at skating, carrying the puck, passing and shooting than Doughty at the same age? I just don't see it.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Don't have to "assume" anything, it DID happen and Bourque was 40 years old to boot!
Same situation with Bourque in his prime...forget about it.

I think you mean similar right?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ray Bourque

Kids are still learning the essentials in youth hockey. Then this huge group of young people are being weeded out so the ones with the most natural ability advance. I don't have an issue with Europeans or Americans coming to Canada to hone their skills and strive to play in the NHL if that is what they choose. It still results in a deeper talent pool overall.

Again, what you bring up is Bourque and Potvin dominating their peers. I contend that their is a deeper pool of elite players now so none of them really stand out. Do you think Bourque was much better at skating, carrying the puck, passing and shooting than Doughty at the same age? I just don't see it.

By your standards a fair number of great NHL players - Eddie Shore who started playing hockey in his teens would have been weeded out.

As for jids learning the essentials. Dreakmur an active coach, posted that he has kids who do not have the basics - defensemen who never learned the basics of D to D passing. Regularly at Midget AAA you see kids turning the wrong way, taking themselves out of the play.

At the identical age Ray Bourque was better than Drew Doughty at every aspect of the game from the basic physical tools - skating, puck handling,etc to the mental tools, appreciating the offensive and defensive geometry of the game, optimizing skating efficiency, integrating a team, working within the abilities of each teammate, learned the league faster. Ray Bourque was also much better at adapting to situations and league changes.

 

[jkrx]

Second, as somebody pointed out, Lidstrom was 3rd on his team for the Norris -- the two guys ahead of him were respectively a post-peak (but still very good) Coffey and Konstantinov, a guy at his (...sadly) peak who shouldn't be in anyone's Top-50. I mean, that's kind of similar to using Guy Lapointe's Cup in '71 to make an argument that he was better than Brad Park at this point (both were the same age), when Park was the no.1 his team and Lapointe was behind Tremblay and Laperrière (... and Savard as well, but Savard had a shortened season) but won a Cup.

Sorry but this makes no sense. Lapointe and Lidström werent really in the same situation. Lidström wasn't stuck behind Coffey and Konstantinov, they both just had great season when it came to Norris voting. What you are saying is that we should punish players for being on great team with other great players and celebrate people who were clear #1s on lesser teams. By that logic, Larionov wasn't that great because he was stuck behind Yzerman and Fedorov. Same thing could be said about Brind'amour, Messier and Francis.

 

[Epsilon]

Why are people only listing out the good defenseman that have played on the Red Wings (including Chelios, who Lidstrom rarely played with other than occasionally on special teams) and ignoring that Lidstrom won Norris trophies playing with guys like Dimitri Bykov, Fredrik Olausson, and Danny Markov? The 2002 playoffs was like a chess match of opposing coaches trying to get their best offensive players on the ice against Chelios and Fischer rather than Lidstrom and Olausson.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I think you mean similar right?

Phrase it any way you want to, the end result is that it was the only time in Bourque's career that he enjoyed the same kind of support and team strength that Lidstrom enjoyed for the entirety of his.

Again, just like in all things, you can place as much or as little weight to this as you like.

As far as whether my mind is made up...on some it is and it won't change.
I saw all of Bourque's career and all of Lidstrom's and I will never hold Lidstrom ahead of Bourque.
If there is one huge factor that always weighs on my mind with the two of them it is obviously team strength.

Despite Lidstrom being on the top perennial Cup contender and being acknowledged as the best team in the league more times than not. They only won 4 Cups. They had more first round exits than Cups in fact. They were set up to succeed more than any other team in the last 20 years and everytime they were defeated it was a huge upset, a lot of failure to succeed and disappointment.
Failed to even come close to meeting expectations more times than they did.

Bourque on the other hand always seemed to be part of upsets and taking his team to places it has no business going. While still disappointing that he couldn't take a Cup home in Boston. Bourque and his teams always seemed to go beyond expectations.

Considering the vast differences in their team strength over the years, their playoff results really aren't that far apart.

Bourque
1 DNQ
21 PO appearances
12 2nd round appearances
7 3rd round appearances
3 Cup Finals
1 Cup
44 Playoff rounds Won

Lidstrom
19 PO appearances
14 2nd round appearances
8 3rd round appearances
6 Cup finals
4 Cups
51 Playoff rounds won

It basically comes down to 3 years and a mere 7 playoff round difference between the two.
Again, considering all the powerhouse Detroit teams over that span, that difference is sweet **** all.

No, as far as the top 5 all-time, my mind is made up on Orr for #1, it's made up that Bourque will forever rank ahead of Lidstrom and it's made up the Harvey will be a part of that top 5 but I fluctuate on exactly where.
The 5th spot is where I am shifting the most, between Shore, Potvin and Kelly.

I saw a some of Orr, all of Bourque and Lidstrom, most of Potvin but I obviously saw nothing of Harvey, Shore and Kelly hence why my fluctuations on them.