Was Raymond Bourque a generational talent?

[archangel2]

the problem that Bourque faces when talking about the generational talent tag is he played at the same time as Paul Coffey. Coffey was more physical more than Bourque and took care of business when times called for old style hockey. For those who watched Coffey and Bourque play got to witness two masters of the game. But Coffey's first 10 years?

 

[VanIslander]

^^^ ABSURD.

I played hockey until 1985 and Coffey was my hero for his offense. "Coffey was more physical than Bourque" is laughable for anyone near my age of 55.

In fact, hthogge is it even possible to claim so?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Coffey was more physical than Bourque...? I'd like to see this.

 

[MadLuke]

I wonder what more physical could mean here ? More athletic ? I would not imagine hurting opponent with body check, hurting them to stay in front of your goaltender or dropping the glove from time to time being the suggestion...

Bourque had one of the highest vo2max ever and that one thing that is particularly a gift physical wise.

 

[klefbombs shoulder]

More physically gifted perhaps? Coffey was one of the best skaters in league history.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I thought about that...but Bourque is really, really high end in this regard too, so it's tough to make sense of it...

 

[sr edler]

Coffey had way more career PIMs than Bourque, also I think more than double the career fights. Perhaps that's what alluded to up thread.

 

[RR44]

funnily enough, of the generation of keith, karlsson, and hedman, i have doughty as the best one.

and on topic, he’s also the most bourque-like.

I agree, Doughty at his very best is a better dman than Karlsson, Hedman and Keith. Fine margins mind you but I'd take Doughty over those 3.

 

[The Pale King]

the problem that Bourque faces when talking about the generational talent tag is he played at the same time as Paul Coffey. Coffey was more physical more than Bourque and took care of business when times called for old style hockey. For those who watched Coffey and Bourque play got to witness two masters of the game. But Coffey's first 10 years?

Agreed, and it seems like a lot of posters here are missing the importance of the wording of the bolded statement. We're clearly talking about another dimension of physicality separate from, but also in addition to, what happened on the ice.

Olivia Newton-John's "Physical" was the Billboard No. 1 song in November of 1981. In that month, Coffey outscored Bourque 13 to 4. Their stats over that month:

Coffey
13 GP, 7 goals, 6 assists, +16.

Bourque
6 GP, 1 goal, 3 assists, +2

Coffey's name was physically on the scoresheet more while "Physical" was on the airwaves, hence why he was "more physical more than Bourque". Obviously and the

 

[Moose Head]

He played with ZERO HHOFers for more than a decade of his career. That is a storm that sucks. Neely, Oates.... were a breath of fresh air. The story of Raymond was that he was a great player being wasted on a team with few stars, the lot of Hawerchuk, the Sedins, Marleau & Thornton, Federko, Bathgate, Balderis, Stastny, Bowie, Hasek in Buffalo, Dionne, Francis, LaFontaine, Salming, Selanne, Sittler, Sundin, Kariya...

He joined a team in 79-80 that was just months away from being within a goal of the finals and a likely cup and had made the finals 2 of the previous 3 years. If Middleton ever gets into the Hall, which he might, he’ll have a hof teammate every year of his career.

While he wasn’t the most blessed player in terms of teammates he had his fair share of good to great teams.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

He joined a team in 79-80 that was just months away from being within a goal of the finals and a likely cup and had made the finals 2 of the previous 3 years. If Middleton ever gets into the Hall, which he might, he’ll have a hof teammate every year of his career.

While he wasn’t the most blessed player in terms of teammates he had his fair share of good to great teams.

Usually because he was on them.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

He joined a team in 79-80 that was just months away from being within a goal of the finals and a likely cup and had made the finals 2 of the previous 3 years. If Middleton ever gets into the Hall, which he might, he’ll have a hof teammate every year of his career.

While he wasn’t the most blessed player in terms of teammates he had his fair share of good to great teams.

That's not really saying much, is it?

Until Middleton does actually get in, there were at least 7 seasons where Bourque was the only HOF player on the team. And quite a few more where the only others would have been over-the-hillers.

 

[seventieslord]

Usually because he was on them.

100% true. If you look at how the Bruins did without Bourque on the ice, it often wasn't pretty. Even when they were a "good" team.

 

[Moose Head]

That's not really saying much, is it?

Until Middleton does actually get in, there were at least 7 seasons where Bourque was the only HOF player on the team. And quite a few more where the only others would have been over-the-hillers.

It’s 2 years. He had Park and Ratelle early in his career, then Neely came in. If Middleton gets in, it’s zero years. And Boston was still a very good and deep team throughout the 80’sinto the 90’s.

Park was still very good those early years.

Was he as blessed in teammates as Coffey? Obviously not, but who was? Bourque’s supporting cast was never poor except that last part of his career in Boston. He’s nowhere near the poor supporting casts Hawerchuk or Dionne had.

 

[Moose Head]

Usually because he was on them.

Obviously he was their best player most of those seasons.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

It’s 2 years. He had Park and Ratelle early in his career, then Neely came in. If Middleton gets in, it’s zero years. And Boston was still a very good and deep team throughout the 80’sinto the 90’s.

Park was still very good those early years.

Was he as blessed in teammates as Coffey? Obviously not, but who was? Bourque’s supporting cast was never poor except that last part of his career in Boston. He’s nowhere near the poor supporting casts Hawerchuk or Dionne had.

Good? Yes, but absolutely not deep.

That was their problem in the Cup Finals. Once you got past Bourque and Neely the talent level falls hard

 

[seventieslord]

Over a span of 14 seasons (1983-84 through 1996-97), the Bruins were an above average team at even strength with Bourque off the ice just two times: 1986 (1.05) and 1988 (1.06). The average ES rating of the team during this time was 0.90, or a GF% of about 47%. During the same time, Bourque had a rating of 1.39, or a GF% of about 58%.

It's not fair to a team carrying player to say they had a "good" team around them when they really didn't. If the team was only good because of their on-ice impact, that's not a very good team. We need to do a better job of distinguishing between the two.

 

[57special]

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

Nah, his career was too short.

 

[MadLuke]

Nah, his career was too short.

Would have played 0 nhl games, how would it have made him less talented (natural ability to do something better than most people) ?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It’s 2 years. He had Park and Ratelle early in his career, then Neely came in. If Middleton gets in, it’s zero years. And Boston was still a very good and deep team throughout the 80’sinto the 90’s.

Park was still very good those early years.

Was he as blessed in teammates as Coffey? Obviously not, but who was? Bourque’s supporting cast was never poor except that last part of his career in Boston. He’s nowhere near the poor supporting casts Hawerchuk or Dionne had.

My apologies, it wasn't 7 years. 4 seasons with zero HOFers.

1984-85
1985-86
1997-98
1998-99

3 seasons of almost.

1983-84 Had 35 year-old Guy Lapointe for 45 games
1999-00 Had 36 year-old Dave Andreychuk for 63 games
1996-97 Had 34 year-old Adam Oates for 63 games

 

[MadLuke]

The average ES rating of the team during this time was 0.90, or a GF% of about 47% ... It's not fair to a team carrying player to say they had a "good" team around them when they really didn't.

Without knowing how good teams and average teams are in that regard when they do not have their first pair of defensemen on the ice in that window, it is hard to fully judge or even a little.

 

[Moose Head]

My apologies, it wasn't 7 years. 4 seasons with zero HOFers.

1984-85
1985-86
1997-98
1998-99

3 seasons of almost.

1983-84 Had 35 year-old Guy Lapointe for 45 games
1999-00 Had 36 year-old Dave Andreychuk for 63 games
1996-97 Had 34 year-old Adam Oates for 63 games

My apologies, it wasn't 7 years. 4 seasons with zero HOFers.

1984-85
1985-86
1997-98
1998-99

3 seasons of almost.

1983-84 Had 35 year-old Guy Lapointe for 45 games
1999-00 Had 36 year-old Dave Andreychuk for 63 games
1996-97 Had 34 year-old Adam Oates for 63 games

As soon as Thornton is eligible it will be 2, but agreed, those mid to late 90’s teams weren’t very good.

The 85 and 86 teams looked good on paper, and anybody who watched would say Kluzak and Pederson were HOF talents with very unfortunate circumstances.

 

[Boxscore]

I love Ray but no. Imho there's only 5 "generational" players in history...

Howe
Orr
Gretzky
Lemieux
McDavid

I don't consider Richard, Beliveau, Hull, Lafleur, Bourque, Yzerman, Jagr, Lindros, Crosby, etc. generational. The tough one is Ovechkin.

 

[The Panther]

Was he as blessed in teammates as Coffey? Obviously not, but who was?

Probably Nick Lidström was. He and Coffey were kind of blessed with great teammates, though in Coffey's case only up to about 1997.

 

[Neutrinos]

I love Ray but no. Imho there's only 5 "generational" players in history...

Howe
Orr
Gretzky
Lemieux
McDavid

I don't consider Richard, Beliveau, Hull, Lafleur, Bourque, Yzerman, Jagr, Lindros, Crosby, etc. generational. The tough one is Ovechkin.

No, it's pretty easy...

Generational players don't go an entire decade in the middle of their careers below a point-per-game and with a negative +/-