Was Raymond Bourque a generational talent?

[SeanMoneyHands]

What do you think? I say he was. Everyone talks about Lidstrom being generational in this era but Bourque was easily just as good as Nic from 1991-1996, if not better. Bourque was a PPG dman in 14 seasons of his 21 year career. 6 Norris trophies with two of them with Lidstrom in the NHL.

Click to read more...

 

[NyQuil]

No.

I don't think Lidstrom was either, for the record.

Are Sakic or Yzerman generational? Are Forsberg and Jagr? We're in that tier of players IMO.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Simply, no.

I'm not sure that I've heard Lidstrom talked about as generational either.

It's an overused word here, and even with that - it's not Bourque.

 

[MadLuke]

He was a type of defenceman having a career you get once in a generation if that (if we define generation of athlete to be around 10-12 years, that mean having a top 8-10 or so defenseman career in nhl history).

Was he a once in generation athlete in hockey, that less clear, specially if durability isn't being counted has a talent here. i.e. was he more talented than Sakic-Lafleur-Kovalchuk-Sundin-Lindros-Yzerman-Potvin-Coffey-Makar, etc... even if he had better career than some..

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-3-3-3-4-4-4-4 Norris finishes
13x AS-1, 6x AS-2
AS-1, ROY, 4th in Norris in Year 1 and AS-1, 2nd in Norris in year 22

When you have a career arc that only Gordie Howe can match, you're generational

 

[Michael Farkas]

OP didn't ask if it was a generational career accomplishments list...he asked "generational talent"...

 

[57special]

Yeah, he was, but seemed to do it in such an efficient, non flashy way. His longevity was extraordinary, too.

 

[Midnight Judges]

No.

Generational talents are the best players in the world, or at least in the conversation.

Lidstrom was never that, and Bourque wasn't either.

And the Norris is a reputation award that lacks objective criteria.

Amazing career, but no, not generational.

 

[NordiquesForeva]

No.

Boston drafted Bourque 8th overall in 1979, out of Verdun. I would have to think that, even in that era of scouting/drafting, a "generational talent" would have been drafted 1st overall. This may be an overly simplistic view on things, but that's more or less how I see it.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

No.

Boston drafted Bourque 8th overall in 1979, out of Verdun. I would have to think that, even in that era of scouting/drafting, a "generational talent" would have been drafted 1st overall. This may be an overly simplistic view on things, but that's more or less how I see it.

Patrick Roy, confirmed not generational. Otherwise he wouldn't have lasted until the 3rd round

 

[Michael Farkas]

That's correct .Also, not generational. (Not that goalies are even really drafted the same way)

 

[MXD]

Possibly a generationnal D-Men but not a generationnal talent, if that makes any sense.

 

[VanIslander]

NHL 1st team all-star in 1980, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, and 2001.

2nd team all-star in 1981, 1983, 1986, 1989, 1995 and 1999.

16 straight seasons either top-2 (mostly) or top-4 ranking among dmen with so many teams of several starters.

He was a generational talent (trollish thread title), the best dman since Orr, way before his 1999 and 2001 swan song.

I graduated high school in '87 and was an Oilers & Habs fan, but couldn't deny that Raymond in Boston was special.

He is arguably one of the top-10 most talented players ever (certainly top 5 d).

Let's just say: you want him on your all-time pick-up team. His unwavering ability to check, take away, transit and shoot you don't wish to face.

He has the focus and effort of an Yzerman, the grit and leadership of a Potvin, the poise and shot of a MacInnis.

 

[McGarnagle]

He was the best and most impactful defenseman of his ERA and was consistently in the elite tier even when he got to Colorado as a 40 year old.

Defensemen are different, he wasn't Gretzky or McDavid with flashy talent and making goals out of nothing, which we'd refer to as generational. But he was spectacularly good in all aspects of the game.

 

[daver]

Why do people get so caught up in the term "generational"?

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

”Generational” is an overused hype term, it seems to have lost its original meaning to me. It was always a hype term, though: it concerns sublime, once-in-a-generation talent that’s plain to see years prior to the draft. The Bruins bought Bobby Orr’s youth team or whatever, Gretzky was a famous hockey talent as a ten year old, look at what teams were willing to give up for Lindros who’d sat out his rookie year…

Rob Ramage, Craig Hartsburg and Keith Brown were defensemen drafted ahead of Bourque. As far as I can tell, it’s pretty clear Bourque wasn’t surrounded by that same level of hype as a prospect, as the “generational” talents by my conventional (?) definition. Doesn’t mean he didn’t become one of the greatest players of all time, only that he wasn’t considered the game breaking generational talent that a select few others were.

 

[Felidae]

If Ray Bourque is not a generational talent, then I suppose the only defenseman that can be considered one is Orr.

 

[Toronto makebeleifs]

Do you consider Bourque a top 5 d of all time? If yes, then there's your answer. For the record, there isn't a question that he's a top 5 D. Up with there with Orr, potvin, Lidstrom, Niedermayer, and Coffey.

 

[Voight]

Do you consider Bourque a top 5 d of all time? If yes, then there's your answer. For the record, there isn't a question that he's a top 5 D. Up with there with Orr, potvin, Lidstrom, Niedermayer, and Coffey.

Bourque is the 2nd best defensemen of all time.

However, I don't think he was "generational"

 

[Michael Farkas]

Do you consider Bourque a top 5 d of all time? If yes, then there's your answer. For the record, there isn't a question that he's a top 5 D. Up with there with Orr, potvin, Lidstrom, Niedermayer, and Coffey.

Yes.
No, it's not.
Probably not...
Niedermayer, eh? Hmmm...

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Yes.
No, it's not.
Probably not...
Niedermayer, eh? Hmmm...

Yeah, Neidermayer is an epic reach.

He wasnt even better than his partners Stevens/Pronger, let alone guys like Harvey, Shore, Chelios, Leetch. Hell, I'd even put contemporary guys like Keith/Karlsson/Chara/Hedman over him

 

[Krigsgaldr]

Why do people get so caught up in the term "generational"?

It’s a generational thing I think

 

[wetcoast]

Simply, no.

I'm not sure that I've heard Lidstrom talked about as generational either.

It's an overused word here, and even with that - it's not Bourque.

The term generational player or talent is one of the more overused terms on the main boards and is used so often that it becomes meaningless.

 

[NordiquesForeva]

Bourque had an incredible package of skills, health and consistency and is quite easily a top-5 defenseman of all-time, but there were two things he did better than any other defenseman I've seen play:

1) Getting point shots through to the goal. Obviously Bourque was the all-time shots on goal leader until Ovechkin passed him recently, but Bourque had an uncanny ability to get good, hard point shots off quickly and get them through traffic and on net (or available for his forwards to tip/deflect)

2) Holding the puck in at the point. Bourque seemed to have incredible hand-eye coordination and was consistently able to bat down pucks mid-air or retrieve them off the boards at the blueline to keep them in the o-zone.

Everything else he did was very good to elite - the skating, the passing, the ability to start a break-out, rushing the puck, defensive zone coverage, physicality....but the shooting ability and hand-eye coordination are what struck me as being at the very highest level.

 

[Toronto makebeleifs]

Yeah, Neidermayer is an epic reach.

He wasnt even better than his partners Stevens/Pronger, let alone guys like Harvey, Shore, Chelios, Leetch. Hell, I'd even put contemporary guys like Keith/Karlsson/Chara/Hedman over him

Fine, yes. Neidermayer was a reach. It's early and I haven't had coffee, so I just listed guys that immediately came to mind. That wasn't the point I was making though. You ask anyone that knows hockey about the best defenceman ever and, after Orr, you'd find your Lidstrom, Bourque, Coffey, chelios, leetch (maybe eventually makar). These are guys that are extremely rare in the game and the tag 'generational' talent is really misunderstood on this site. Like someone is playing franchise mode where every player has to fall into an exact slotting and there may only EVER be one generational talent at a time.

Honestly though, it's is ABSURD to think that Bourque wasn't a 'generational' talent. For example, here's the list of defenceman that have 5 Norris Trophies and over 1500 points: Ray Bourque. That's it, that's all of them.