lilidk
Registered User
- Mar 4, 2008
- 9,592
- 3,426
that's how they operateAnd theyll trade one of em for Danny Dekeyser probably
that's how they operateAnd theyll trade one of em for Danny Dekeyser probably
That would definitely be a dream come true, And the way this team is playing hopefully very doable.
Not a fan of Bouchard. In an era that is all about defenseman who can skate, Bouchard does not fit that mold. His work ethic is also very questionable, which makes me think the wings wont draft him anyway.
I want Dahlin, Boqvist, or Hughes.
The "Bouchard can't skate" meme has gone a little too far. He's a 7/10 in a draft of 9/10s (and 10/10 in Hughes' case). He'll be fine. He's not a burner, but that's not his game, either.Not a fan of Bouchard. In an era that is all about defenseman who can skate, Bouchard does not fit that mold. His work ethic is also very questionable, which makes me think the wings wont draft him anyway.
I want Dahlin, Boqvist, or Hughes.
The "Bouchard can't skate" meme has gone a little too far. He's a 7/10 in a draft of 9/10s (and 10/10 in Hughes' case). He'll be fine. He's not a burner, but that's not his game, either.
and I don't know how work ethic could be a problem for a guy playing 30 min a night. His partner must work very hard if Bouchard does not. IMO criticisms of Bouchard are similar to early-career criticisms of Lidstrom. Bouchard is not even close to as good, but he tries to read the play like a Lidstrom. He doesn't move a ton because he thinks he's already in position. (And you don't get to move a lot when you're playing 30 min a night; you'll tire out and be useless later on.)
I'm not talking about his skating there. I'm talking about his "compete level." As I recall, Lidstrom was frozen out of Norris discussion early in his career because he didn't play the same NA style as everybody else. He was too much of a European-style finesse defenseman.Lidstrom was a very, very good skater early in his career. And he always had a good slapshot and a good pass.
A young Lidstrom would fit right in with today's modern NHL defensemen.
I'm not talking about his skating there. I'm talking about his "compete level." As I recall, Lidstrom was frozen out of Norris discussion early in his career because he didn't play the same NA style as everybody else. He was too much of a European-style finesse defenseman.
No offense, but Vladdy was never the best defenseman on his team, let alone the best in the league.It was mostly because of the anti-Euro bias. it was the same with Konstantinov, who was the best defenseman in the game and he never won anything either.
Plus, the Norris tends to be a reputation trophy. It seems to take voters a little bit of time to catch on to the new up and comers unless they absolutely blow everyone away.
No offense, but Vladdy was never the best defenseman on his team, let alone the best in the league.
And ES numbers are PART of the equation, not the ENTIRE equation.No offense, but you're wrong.
In 95-96 Konstantinov was the best defenseman in the NHL.
Konstantinov was the PK guy. The defensive warrior.
But he finished with 14 goals and 20 assists.
Here's Lidstrom vs Konstantinov that year, at even strength.
Konstantinov - 10-15-25
Lidstrom - 8-17-25
Chelios put up a boat load of points in Chicago. But Konstantinov was better than Chelly by this point.
Skated better. Better hands. Harder hitter.
The next year, Konstantinov was down a bit, dealing with injuries. He got second in Norris voting, as voters tried to make amends. But in 95-96, Vladdie was the best all-around defenseman in the NHL.
He was undoubtedly the leader of the Red Wings defense.
Revisonist history.No offense, but Vladdy was never the best defenseman on his team, let alone the best in the league.
Certainly not by me. And not by the team, either, based on minutes played.Revisonist history.
In 96 he was considered above Lidstrom
And ES numbers are PART of the equation, not the ENTIRE equation.
Total stat line:
Vladdy 14-20-34 in 81 games.
Lidstrom 17-50-67 in 81 games.
It's a crying shame, what happened to Konstantinov (and the others in the limo crash). And he was a very good defenseman, particularly that season. But sometimes his career gets romanticized a bit more in hindsight.
Nick was the leader and best player of the defensemen, before, during, and after that season. And as for the league, that's not even including Leetch, Bourque, or Coffee - all of whom put up better stats than either, Vladdy, Nick, or Chelios.
Certainly not by me. And not by the team, either, based on minutes played.
There's nothing wrong with saying he was awesome, but not the 1A. Especially since the 1A was among the top 5-10 to ever play the position in the history of the sport.
It's also entirely possible that a guy is having a phenomenal year, but still isn't the lynchpin of a group or team.
I'm flat out wrong that 67 points is more than 34 points? Or that Leetch and Bourque were the top 2 defensemen that year in scoring? Because those are simply facts.You're flat out wrong.
And Norris Trophy guys disagree with you on Coffey and Lidstrom being better than Vladdie that year.
Not that Norris voting is everything, but let's not leave out that Chelios had 408, Bourque had 403, and Leetch had 245. Vladdy was never really in the mix to win that one.Where's your evidence that Lidstrom played more?
Norris voting
Lidstrom 54
Coffey 83
Konstantinov 131
I don't people remember how Lidstrom's defense was regarded early in his career.