Hawkey Town 18
Registered User
Not the exact order I had, but the Top 5 are the same, so I'm happy. These guys were really tough to rank, and I have a feeling it's only gonna get more difficult.
Round 2 Voting Results (HOH Top Defensemen)
- Thread starter TheDevilMadeMe
- Start date
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I'm enjoying the "reveal" of these results immensely. This is probably the most fun thing on HF since the Thrasher fan dispersal draft 
Dreakmur
Registered User
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,836
- 16,567
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
1st offensively
43rd defensively
So my ranking him 7th overall was kind of generous.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,843
- 3,799
Poor Paul.
He truly is the Rodney Dangerfield of the "Top 5 in Norris voting at least 10 times club".
Tough competition though.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Anyone notice that Park and Clancy tied in first-and-second place votes? That matchup might deserve its own thread a la Potvin/Lidstrom.
JaysCyYoung
Registered User
A few things jump out at me from this most recent round of voting:
- I honestly am pleasantly surprised to see that Brad Park received so many votes this time around. I believe I myself only ranked him in sixth place (below Coffey, Clancy, MacInnis, Stevens, and Cleghorn), but it was nonetheless to see him recognized at last. He was probably the best defenceman of the 1970-1976 period after Orr and the six Norris Trophy runner-ups seemed to embody his "always a bridesmaid" perception.
- I thought that Coffey would finish on top this round (I had him ranked first on my list due to his overwhelming offensive totals, Norris Trophy, and international record) but the fact that he received a vote as low as tenth epitomizes his contentious nature amongst hockey observers.
- Brian Leetch finished exactly where he should have, especially on a list with so many other upper-echelon names. Leetch was a phenomenal defender in his prime and won two Norris Trophies against incredible top-end competition, and his 1994 Conn Smythe-winning performance is one of the all-time best post-seasons by a defenceman, but his short peak and defensive play was just too ominous for voters to overlook.
- Earl Seibert finishing ahead of both Stevens and Chris Pronger was a bit of a total shocker for me. I thought that he was the clear-cut second worst name on the list at this point after Leetch. An elite defenceman whose post-season all-star voting record is immaculate, but who had the fortune to play most of his prime in the seasons following the declines and retirement of both Clancy and Shore (the two unquestioned top blueliners in the world). I also find it odd that he ranked ahead of both Pronger and Stevens because he was never at any point regarded as the best defenceman in hockey; Pronger in 2000 and Stevens in 1994 can make arguments for that but Seibert cannot.
- Sprague Cleghorn was almost impossible to rank and really could have finished in any spot down to tenth without it being problematic. As I stated in a previous post during the discussion for this past round, he could have been ranked anywhere from second to tenth on my list. I can appreciate the elite offensive skills and rushing ability that he brought to the table, his remarkable star power and ability to be an ambassador for drawing fans everywhere he went, and quite frankly the fact that he had such a positive impact on his team's success with multiple championships, but evaluating pre-consolidation players (keeping in mind he played ten NHL years post-consolidation with his best years coming before that) is notoriously difficult. There's also the fact that he was a notoriously violent player with an unstable temper who could hurt his teams with selfish personal vendettas. Truly a difficult name to rank.
- Pierre Pilote seemed to be in most people's top five, a fact that somewhat surprised me. There were the numerous comparisons to Park and Horton in the just-completed round of discussions, but I thought that he might end up getting squeezed out due to the high level of competition and level of parity in this round. It was nice to see him making the cut. I am not surprised to see that his contemporary Horton, who was quite arguably the second best defenceman of Pilote's prime years, was a cut, but I hope that voters take into account his remarkable post-season performances, strong post-season voting record, and incredible durability and longevity into account in the next round of voting. I know that he'll likely be one of the guys to make my personal cut moving forward.
- I honestly am pleasantly surprised to see that Brad Park received so many votes this time around. I believe I myself only ranked him in sixth place (below Coffey, Clancy, MacInnis, Stevens, and Cleghorn), but it was nonetheless to see him recognized at last. He was probably the best defenceman of the 1970-1976 period after Orr and the six Norris Trophy runner-ups seemed to embody his "always a bridesmaid" perception.
- I thought that Coffey would finish on top this round (I had him ranked first on my list due to his overwhelming offensive totals, Norris Trophy, and international record) but the fact that he received a vote as low as tenth epitomizes his contentious nature amongst hockey observers.
- Brian Leetch finished exactly where he should have, especially on a list with so many other upper-echelon names. Leetch was a phenomenal defender in his prime and won two Norris Trophies against incredible top-end competition, and his 1994 Conn Smythe-winning performance is one of the all-time best post-seasons by a defenceman, but his short peak and defensive play was just too ominous for voters to overlook.
- Earl Seibert finishing ahead of both Stevens and Chris Pronger was a bit of a total shocker for me. I thought that he was the clear-cut second worst name on the list at this point after Leetch. An elite defenceman whose post-season all-star voting record is immaculate, but who had the fortune to play most of his prime in the seasons following the declines and retirement of both Clancy and Shore (the two unquestioned top blueliners in the world). I also find it odd that he ranked ahead of both Pronger and Stevens because he was never at any point regarded as the best defenceman in hockey; Pronger in 2000 and Stevens in 1994 can make arguments for that but Seibert cannot.
- Sprague Cleghorn was almost impossible to rank and really could have finished in any spot down to tenth without it being problematic. As I stated in a previous post during the discussion for this past round, he could have been ranked anywhere from second to tenth on my list. I can appreciate the elite offensive skills and rushing ability that he brought to the table, his remarkable star power and ability to be an ambassador for drawing fans everywhere he went, and quite frankly the fact that he had such a positive impact on his team's success with multiple championships, but evaluating pre-consolidation players (keeping in mind he played ten NHL years post-consolidation with his best years coming before that) is notoriously difficult. There's also the fact that he was a notoriously violent player with an unstable temper who could hurt his teams with selfish personal vendettas. Truly a difficult name to rank.
- Pierre Pilote seemed to be in most people's top five, a fact that somewhat surprised me. There were the numerous comparisons to Park and Horton in the just-completed round of discussions, but I thought that he might end up getting squeezed out due to the high level of competition and level of parity in this round. It was nice to see him making the cut. I am not surprised to see that his contemporary Horton, who was quite arguably the second best defenceman of Pilote's prime years, was a cut, but I hope that voters take into account his remarkable post-season performances, strong post-season voting record, and incredible durability and longevity into account in the next round of voting. I know that he'll likely be one of the guys to make my personal cut moving forward.
overpass
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2007
- 5,271
- 2,808
I voted Paul Coffey 10th this round. I realize that's a little controversial, but I'm not at all impressed with Coffey's career past about 1986. Bouncing from team to team, with teams winning after he left, poor plus-minus numbers and high goals-against, etc.
I realize he was an awesome offensive force and big-game player in 1984, but that segment of his career didn't really last that long. He had trouble adjusting to the more structured game and shorter shifts that were coming in during the late 80s/early 90s.
All the players from about 13-20 were hard for me to rank, and I wasn't that far from ranking Coffey 4th or 5th in the group, but in the end I would simply not want to build a team around Paul Coffey as compared to the other players up for voting.
BTW, Coffey finished 12 points behind Clancy for 12th, meaning that it wasn't just one vote that was the difference.
I realize he was an awesome offensive force and big-game player in 1984, but that segment of his career didn't really last that long. He had trouble adjusting to the more structured game and shorter shifts that were coming in during the late 80s/early 90s.
All the players from about 13-20 were hard for me to rank, and I wasn't that far from ranking Coffey 4th or 5th in the group, but in the end I would simply not want to build a team around Paul Coffey as compared to the other players up for voting.
BTW, Coffey finished 12 points behind Clancy for 12th, meaning that it wasn't just one vote that was the difference.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,843
- 3,799
One thing that I find interesting about this is that when people are considering the older era great players (that no one has even laid eyes on) those players are given the benefit of the doubt regarding their ability to adapt their game.
Meanwhile a guy like Coffey, who was certainly a product of his time, and who struggled after he really slowed down (and the game became the literal antithesis of his style) has it held against him.
This despite the fact that he did adapt his game well enough to win Norris trophies across a complete decade span against competition that this board constantly gives other players extra credit for..
If he had simply retired or blown out a knee after 1995 he'd probably be held in much higher esteem.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
That's not entirely true; it was part of my case against Cleghorn (though I ultimately did give the ********* my 5th place vote).
pappyline
Registered User
I disagree. Personally, I think modern era players are given the benefit of the doubt which is why you see players like Stevens & Pronger up for consideration so soon. Their accomplishments are fresh in peoples mind. Some time needs to pass before their careers can be judged objectively.
BTW, Coffey was in my top 5 last round.
Dreakmur
Registered User
Shouldn't matter. This has nothing to do with guys getting into time machines and playing for the Leafs next week. This is about how great a player was, so the style of play during a player's era should not factor in.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
I had MacInnis & Seibert in my top 5. Seibert not making it really surprised me and MacInnis coming so close surprised me too.
I think Leetch is way underrated. With his team down a goal and the goalie pulled he was the best Dman I ever saw.
I voted Cleghorn 11th.
I think Leetch is way underrated. With his team down a goal and the goalie pulled he was the best Dman I ever saw.
I voted Cleghorn 11th.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,843
- 3,799
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
Works both ways I'm sure. While their accomplishments are easy to recall, so are their faults.
Once a player passes into legend status, it takes a lot more digging to find their faults.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Yup. Leetch gets dragged through the mud for falling apart defensively in the second half of his career (after being pretty good though not elite in the first half of his career).
But don't dare question an original 6er's defensive ability.
Dreakmur
Registered User
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Yup. Leetch gets dragged through the mud for falling apart defensively in the second half of his career (after being pretty good though not elite in the first half of his career).
But don't dare question an original 6er's defensive ability.
Did Leetch fall apart defensively or did the Rangers?
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
