20 Greatest Red Wings #12

[Hobnobs]

How old are you, out of curiosity? You seem to be us on the more modern guys of recent years. You seem so infatuated with the past. It's not ignoring history. IF it was a lot of us wouldn't have picked the Howes and Delvecchio's already. Like seriously, get over this historic pride. The very fact those guys already are listed top 10 should make your argument moot from your end. People should be allowed to have an opinion without it constantly being put into question.

What argument was that? I asked a simple question. Has nothing to with pride but this is a forum and before voting shouldnt there atleast be a discussion about the options?

and actually Howe and Delvecchio renders this "It was the O6 era, it was easy"-argument moot.

 

[TS Quint]

Its rather insulting to me that fans vote for the greatest red wings of all-time and then just votes for modern players because thats what they've seen and they dont care about the history of this great franchise. So my question is, why vote is you dont care?

Rather than just insulting people why don't you make an argument for your point? I attempted to argue that Lidstrom should have been taken above Yzerman. Even though I was clearly right I wasn't able to convince a single person but at least it was a (short) fun discussion.

 

[Hobnobs]

Rather than just insulting people why don't you make an argument for your point? I attempted to argue that Lidstrom should have been taken above Yzerman. Even though I was clearly right I wasn't able to convince a single person but at least it was a (short) fun discussion.

My grandpa did but he just got slapped in the face with "O6 era was easy" so whats the point?

You can throw up a flawless track record here and it'll be dissmissed by, "I didnt see it so therefor it has no value" unless its a known superstar it wont matter. Going to be funny when these guys see where casual fans ranks shanny and ozzie in 40 or so years

 

[Bench]

It's just an internet fan poll. You might be putting too much authority behind what amounts to a popularity contest.

 

[Z40]

To echo what has already been said to one member's ignorant comments, some people think they are elitests when it comes to making picks that come from out of left field. Sometimes the obvious choice player makes for the obvious vote, because it's well deserved. Not saying your pick is any less valid, but don't knock others for their pick.

I never saw Jack Stewart play, nor did 99 percent of the forum members on hockeysfuture. btw That 99 percent is probably more like 100. So I go based on what I know beyond the stats and little-to-no in-depth analysis's of a player. Back then the game didn't have the expanded audience it has today, due to decades of fan growth and available media outlets. Brendan Shanahan is not a random fan pick. He's one of the best power forwards in the game. He played some of his best years in Detroit, playing a huge part in a few of those Cup wins. It seems logical that he would be voted over a player who's last NHL game was in 1952. As someone who obsesses about the game and its history, I am aware of players today and yesteryear. Having said that it goes to say, I prefer to take the stronger and more talented player. The guy who was conditioned for a bigger faster game. One that has seen decades of evolution from Jack Stewart's time. You say an educated fan should know those players. An educated fan should also know the game has evolved since those players time. You can't compare a Joe Malone to a Sidney Crosby, because one is clearly superior to the other despite how dominate one may have been in their era.

I'll take it further... I am a Vladimir Konstantinov fan. After Steve Yzerman he's my all-time favorite Red Wing and the defenseman I cherish more than any other in the game. His dominating performance in the 1997 Cup Final against Philadelphia where he was Eric Lindros and John Leclair's shadow, will not be forgotten. He made their life miserable and made it difficult for either one to produce, and was one of the major factors why those two stars were held to one point each in that Final. However, as tempting as it was to vote for him, I had to go with who I felt deep down inside was the better Wing in his time with Motorcity. Maybe things would have been different if Vladimir's career wasn't cut short.

I am not saying you're not allowed to have an opinion and go with a Jack Stewart or Norm Ullman as your pick. It's not always who would be better today, but who had the biggest impact in the franchise's history. I get that. However, to talk down or make it be known how much more educated your opinion is vs another's comes off rather insulting.

Bravo!

I hate elitist *******s. There is no right answer. This poll is subjective.

 

[TS Quint]

My grandpa did but he just got slapped in the face with "O6 era was easy" so whats the point?

You can throw up a flawless track record here and it'll be dissmissed by, "I didnt see it so therefor it has no value" unless its a known superstar it wont matter. Going to be funny when these guys see where casual fans ranks shanny and ozzie in 40 or so years

Where does Bill Quackenbush fit into this poll?

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Where does Bill Quackenbush fit into this poll?

All-Star Team Selections as Red Wings

Shanahan:
1st, 1st, 2nd at left wing

Stewart:
1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd at defense

Ullman:
1st, 2nd at center

Pronovost:
1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd at defense

Quackenbush:
1st, 1st, 2nd at defense

 

[pdd]

I am a Vladimir Konstantinov fan. After Steve Yzerman he's my all-time favorite Red Wing and the defenseman I cherish more than any other in the game. His dominating performance in the 1997 Cup Final against Philadelphia where he was Eric Lindros and John Leclair's shadow

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

My thoughts exactly, Lidstrom drew that assignment. In fact I can remember a couple long articles when he retired specifically highlighting this so it isn't like we didn't just get a fresh recourse in this story.

I agree with a lot of the rest of the post, but that part is flat out inaccurate.

 

[jkrx]

To echo what has already been said to one member's ignorant comments, some people think they are elitests when it comes to making picks that come from out of left field. Sometimes the obvious choice player makes for the obvious vote, because it's well deserved. Not saying your pick is any less valid, but don't knock others for their pick.

I never saw Jack Stewart play, nor did 99 percent of the forum members on hockeysfuture. btw That 99 percent is probably more like 100. So I go based on what I know beyond the stats and little-to-no in-depth analysis's of a player. Back then the game didn't have the expanded audience it has today, due to decades of fan growth and available media outlets. Brendan Shanahan is not a random fan pick. He's one of the best power forwards in the game. He played some of his best years in Detroit, playing a huge part in a few of those Cup wins. It seems logical that he would be voted over a player who's last NHL game was in 1952. As someone who obsesses about the game and its history, I am aware of players today and yesteryear. Having said that it goes to say, I prefer to take the stronger and more talented player. The guy who was conditioned for a bigger faster game. One that has seen decades of evolution from Jack Stewart's time. You say an educated fan should know those players. An educated fan should also know the game has evolved since those players time. You can't compare a Joe Malone to a Sidney Crosby, because one is clearly superior to the other despite how dominate one may have been in their era.

I'll take it further... I am a Vladimir Konstantinov fan. After Steve Yzerman he's my all-time favorite Red Wing and the defenseman I cherish more than any other in the game. His dominating performance in the 1997 Cup Final against Philadelphia where he was Eric Lindros and John Leclair's shadow, will not be forgotten. He made their life miserable and made it difficult for either one to produce, and was one of the major factors why those two stars were held to one point each in that Final. However, as tempting as it was to vote for him, I had to go with who I felt deep down inside was the better Wing in his time with Motorcity. Maybe things would have been different if Vladimir's career wasn't cut short.

I am not saying you're not allowed to have an opinion and go with a Jack Stewart or Norm Ullman as your pick. It's not always who would be better today, but who had the biggest impact in the franchise's history. I get that. However, to talk down or make it be known how much more educated your opinion is vs another's comes off rather insulting.

So basically, Malkin, Crosby, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Thornton >>> Gordie Howe, Beliveau, Orr, Mikitia and so on?

Do you also believe Brett Hull was better than Bobby Hull?

 

[TS Quint]

So basically, Malkin, Crosby, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Thornton >>> Gordie Howe, Beliveau, Orr, Mikitia and so on?

Do you also believe Brett Hull was better than Bobby Hull?

Shouldn't a player be judged relitive to their own era?

I would say Brett was clearly a better goal scorer.

 

[jkrx]

Shouldn't a player be judged relitive to their own era?

I would say Brett was clearly a better goal scorer.

Bobby Hull was top-5 in goalscoring for 12 out of 13 NHL seasons including 7 first places. Brett was top-5 four times and had three first places.

Edit: and to your first question, I think so but read the post I'm quoting.

 

[TS Quint]

Bobby Hull was top-5 in goalscoring for 12 out of 13 NHL seasons including 7 first places. Brett was top-5 four times and had three first places.

Edit: and to your first question, I think so but read the post I'm quoting.

alright Bobby's better

 

[RaySheppard]

Don't worry if this lockout continues I am sure we will have to do a least favorite 20 Wings at some point.

THIS is a good idea. I would opine Cheveldae #1 and Wendel Clark #2.

I am surprised at the lack of love Konstantinov is getting in these polls. Perhaps a majority of the posters are under 35 and only think of the accident and the aftermath, instead of the huge presense the man had on the ice.

Smart and skilled offensively, Superb on the back end, Great +/- year after year, awsome physicality and a complete ***** to play against. Vlad was a warrior who only wore one uniform in the NHL and was a major player in bringing us the first cup in 40+ years.

 

[RaySheppard]

My thoughts exactly, Lidstrom drew that assignment. In fact I can remember a couple long articles when he retired specifically highlighting this so it isn't like we didn't just get a fresh recourse in this story.

I agree with a lot of the rest of the post, but that part is flat out inaccurate.

Really? Did you look it up on Wikpedia and take that as fact? There was a lot more going on than that. If you are dismissing Konstantinov as have having a hand in shutting down Lindros and Leclair, I don't think you watched the series too closely..

 

[jkrx]

Really? Did you look it up on Wikpedia and take that as fact? There was a lot more going on than that. If you are dismissing Konstantinov as have having a hand in shutting down Lindros and Leclair, I don't think you watched the series too closely..

No, Konstantinov was not the one assigned to Lindros. Having a hand in taking on Lindros is alot different from being assigned to shut him down.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Really? Did you look it up on Wikpedia and take that as fact? There was a lot more going on than that. If you are dismissing Konstantinov as have having a hand in shutting down Lindros and Leclair, I don't think you watched the series too closely..

Like I said this is pretty well documented. Michael Farber in 1997:

Bowman surprised Murray—and everybody else—when he didn't use rugged defenseman Vladimir Konstantinov against Lindros and LeClair. Instead of the nastiest blueliner in the NHL, Bowman trotted out Nicklas Lidstrom and Larry Murphy, two finesse-oriented defenders. They handle the puck better than any other Detroit defensive pair, and that ability helped them stifle Philadelphia's vaunted forechecking. In Lindros's 103 even-strength shifts in the four games, Lidstrom and Murphy played together against him 62 times.

"Some other teams that played the Flyers in the playoffs tried to hammer their big players," Red Wings associate coach Dave Lewis said. "[Those teams attempted to] go after them with strength and size, and be in their face. When the opportunity is there, you can do it. But they'll wear you down before they get worn down. So there are other things to use."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1010240/3/index.htm

Murray even became so concerned with it he started trying to run from the matchup of Lidstrom on Lindros.

Another story by Katie Baker when he retired:

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/28479/nicklas-lidstroms-perfect-career

Another good one from Michael Rosenberg for SI

Konstantinov was a defenseman's version of Lindros: a Russian known as "Vlad the Impaler" who appeared destined for the Hall of Fame.

There was a lot of hype for the Legion of Doom against Vlad the Impaler -- hockey fans could not wait to see them go at each other. Well, Wings coach Scotty Bowman was never much for hype. Shortly before Game 1 in Philadelphia, Bowman told his team that he would put the pairing of Lidstrom and Murphy -- not Konstantinov against the Legion of Doom.

At the time, Lidstrom was considered just another All-Star. But it was like the Flyers showed up to a checkers game and found out they had to play chess.

Legion of Doom?

"They never had the puck," Murphy said.


Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20.../30/nicklas.lidstrom/index.html#ixzz2F7rh21IK

You can say whatever you want, but the fact Bowman wanted and won by putting Lidstrom out as much as he could against Lindros. Any other story just isn't very accurate. Konstantinov did do plenty of hitting in that series and was important. I don't forget how good he was back then many people thought he was going be better than Lidstrom and was better back then. Now I never agreed but I remember it quite well. Sadly we will never know and I cannot even put him over say Chris Osgood because his career is short and that is a factor. Also if we are going to play the what if game Jiri Fischer is another interesting name that was also destine for very big things in my opinion. He didn't accomplish as much as Konstantinov but I have no doubt in my mind that Fischer was also on his way to doing some great things.

 

[RaySheppard]

Like I said this is pretty well documented. Michael Farber in 1997:





http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1010240/3/index.htm

Murray even became so concerned with it he started trying to run from the matchup of Lidstrom on Lindros.

Another story by Katie Baker when he retired:

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/28479/nicklas-lidstroms-perfect-career

Another good one from Michael Rosenberg for SI



You can say whatever you want, but the fact Bowman wanted and won by putting Lidstrom out as much as he could against Lindros. Any other story just isn't very accurate. Konstantinov did do plenty of hitting in that series and was important. I don't forget how good he was back then many people thought he was going be better than Lidstrom and was better back then. Now I never agreed but I remember it quite well. Sadly we will never know and I cannot even put him over say Chris Osgood because his career is short and that is a factor. Also if we are going to play the what if game Jiri Fischer is another interesting name that was also destine for very big things in my opinion. He didn't accomplish as much as Konstantinov but I have no doubt in my mind that Fischer was also on his way to doing some great things.

You have backed your point up with numerous references to what opinion columnists had to say at the time. Fair enough and non inflamatory, well stated.

I, however don't agree. Bowman at the time was worshiped by the media. His words were gold by Farber and co. It wasn't until the nepotism crap in Chicago that the media was allowed to question this hockey god. Farber's article is almost disturbing in the fact that Lewis and Bowman get all the credit for a 4 game sweep over the Flyers. Fedorov, Vernon and co..won a 20 game war, winning 16 to hoist the cup. ST.Louis and Colorado were not pushovers to say the least.

You do link an article that states Lidstrom was up against Lindros 60% of the time at even strength. Who was out the other 40% or most of it?

How about PK time? The Flyers had 19 pp's. Just because Lidstrom had 62 shifts vs. Lindros does not mean him and Vlad were never on the same shift. Because they were believe it or not.

I'm not going to search it out, but if you want to look up the pk ice times in the finals of Lidstrom, Murphy and Konstantinov I would be all ears.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

You have backed your point up with numerous references to what opinion columnists had to say at the time. Fair enough and non inflamatory, well stated.

I, however don't agree. Bowman at the time was worshiped by the media. His words were gold by Farber and co. It wasn't until the nepotism crap in Chicago that the media was allowed to question this hockey god. Farber's article is almost disturbing in the fact that Lewis and Bowman get all the credit for a 4 game sweep over the Flyers. Fedorov, Vernon and co..won a 20 game war, winning 16 to hoist the cup. ST.Louis and Colorado were not pushovers to say the least.

You do link an article that states Lidstrom was up against Lindros 60% of the time at even strength. Who was out the other 40% or most of it?

How about PK time? The Flyers had 19 pp's. Just because Lidstrom had 62 shifts vs. Lindros does not mean him and Vlad were never on the same shift. Because they were believe it or not.

I'm not going to search it out, but if you want to look up the pk ice times in the finals of Lidstrom, Murphy and Konstantinov I would be all ears.

Yeah, it's really not black and white. Konstantinov was very effective against Lindros. He played against Lindros in regular season games and limited his scoring while even more effectively, annoying the heck out of Lindros and getting him in the box a lot - I remember once actually looking up the stats, and Konstantinov looks great against Lindros there, in addition to my recollection.

Now this is just my opinion, but I think Bowman recognized playing Lindros physically was reactionary coaching, and chose to focus on the Wings' strengths more than reacting to the Flyer's strengths. Lidstrom proved to be even more effective against the Legion of Doom than Konstantinov was, largely because he controlled the ice better and fit the puck possession style of play better... Neutralizing Lindros not physically, but by simply keeping the puck away from him. It was Lidstrom's coming out party - he showed the world how great he really was defensively, despite not playing physically, and still was able to dictate the play on the ice.

Konstantinov was great against Lindros, just Lidstrom proved to be even better, something Bowman seemed to have identified.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

You have backed your point up with numerous references to what opinion columnists had to say at the time. Fair enough and non inflamatory, well stated.

I, however don't agree. Bowman at the time was worshiped by the media. His words were gold by Farber and co. It wasn't until the nepotism crap in Chicago that the media was allowed to question this hockey god. Farber's article is almost disturbing in the fact that Lewis and Bowman get all the credit for a 4 game sweep over the Flyers. Fedorov, Vernon and co..won a 20 game war, winning 16 to hoist the cup. ST.Louis and Colorado were not pushovers to say the least.

You do link an article that states Lidstrom was up against Lindros 60% of the time at even strength. Who was out the other 40% or most of it?

How about PK time? The Flyers had 19 pp's. Just because Lidstrom had 62 shifts vs. Lindros does not mean him and Vlad were never on the same shift. Because they were believe it or not.

I'm not going to search it out, but if you want to look up the pk ice times in the finals of Lidstrom, Murphy and Konstantinov I would be all ears.

I am not saying he never touched the ice against him at least I hope I didn't

I was just pointing out that was Lidstrom's assignment when Bowman could dictate it and Lidstrom deserves the credit he gets for it. Could they have won with Konstantinov playing him, in my opinion yes. In fact who know that might have been the start of the end for Lindros from a big hit from Vlad instead of Stevens. But that isn't how it happened and that wasn't the team plan. Philly got it handed to them and their goaltending wasn't up to that series, they were chasing the puck the whole time and that was across their lines. Sure some matchups might have worked out better but without a better performance from Hextall they were going to lose that series pretty handily.

Konstantinov was a great GREAT player and I still to this day think of him as one of my favorite Red Wings. But this was a point I felt compelled to argue and something I think is well documented as I just tried to show.

 

[RaySheppard]

Yeah, it's really not black and white. Konstantinov was very effective against Lindros. He played against Lindros in regular season games and limited his scoring while even more effectively, annoying the heck out of Lindros and getting him in the box a lot - I remember once actually looking up the stats, and Konstantinov looks great against Lindros there, in addition to my recollection.

Now this is just my opinion, but I think Bowman recognized playing Lindros physically was reactionary coaching, and chose to focus on the Wings' strengths more than reacting to the Flyer's strengths. Lidstrom proved to be even more effective against the Legion of Doom than Konstantinov was, largely because he controlled the ice better and fit the puck possession style of play better... Neutralizing Lindros not physically, but by simply keeping the puck away from him. It was Lidstrom's coming out party - he showed the world how great he really was defensively, despite not playing physically, and still was able to dictate the play on the ice.

Konstantinov was great against Lindros, just Lidstrom proved to be even better, something Bowman seemed to have identified.

I get it. I do. But i've heard 'squat all' about the Blues or Avalanche series in this thread. Did Konstantinov step up to the plate? I say yes. Deadmarsh or Foote may have got the better of him in scraps...but so what..he stepped up to the plate and didn't back down.

 

[RaySheppard]

I am not saying he never touched the ice against him at least I hope I didn't

I was just pointing out that was Lidstrom's assignment when Bowman could dictate it and Lidstrom deserves the credit he gets for it. Could they have won with Konstantinov playing him, in my opinion yes. In fact who know that might have been the start of the end for Lindros from a big hit from Vlad instead of Stevens. But that isn't how it happened and that wasn't the team plan. Philly got it handed to them and their goaltending wasn't up to that series, they were chasing the puck the whole time and that was across their lines. Sure some matchups might have worked out better but without a better performance from Hextall they were going to lose that series pretty handily.

Konstantinov was a great GREAT player and I still to this day think of him as one of my favorite Red Wings. But this was a point I felt compelled to argue and something I think is well documented as I just tried to show.

OK.....but it took 16 games to win. Would you like to argue how much/littlte Vlad was involved against Colorado and St.Louis?

 

[RedWingsNow*]

This stuff about "lidstrom shutting down Lindros" is a little inaccurate.

Like Murphy said "They never had the puck."

As the Red Wings puck possession game has proven, time and time again, when you have the puck, the other team can't hurt you.

So Lids and Murphy didn't shut down Lindros with defense as much as the Wings just outoffensed Lindros.

It was a great tactical move by a coach more than it was "great defense."

Regardless, I think it's kind of early for Konstantinov to be in the discussion. You take care of the hall of famers first.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

OK.....but it took 16 games to win. Would you like to argue how much/littlte Vlad was involved against Colorado and St.Louis?

I didn't say he didn't I just pointed out that Lidstrom was the primary guy after a poster said Vlad vs. Lindros.

Konstantinov was very important and he bothered Colorado a bunch, was usually one of our better players when they were playing that team. The way he would steamroll both Forsberg and Lemieux were really important.

 

[RaySheppard]

185 +/- over 446 reg. season games. Extrapolate that vs. Lidstrom's or even Orr's career....he's easily top 3 all time.