ATD Chat Thread XVI

[VanIslander]

I wish i could remember which NHL coach had said on TV when Ray retired: Every dman was compared to Bourque for 20 years. He was the standard. "Yeah, but is he better than Bourque?" was the question.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Prime Harvey not only was in the conversation for the Norris, he won it by massive margins every year he was healthy.

Bourque's one advantage over Harvey is that he came roaring out of the gate, while Harvey, kind of like Lidstrom, took a little while to hit his stride .

 

[The Macho King]

Prime Harvey not only was in the conversation for the Norris, he won it by massive margins every year he was healthy.

Bourque's one advantage over Harvey is that he came roaring out of the gate, while Harvey, kind of like Lidstrom, took a little while to hit his stride .

Not doubting hes the best of his generation, and by a good margin. But I mean, who is his competition? Red Kelly wasn't at his peak when Harvey was.

I dont know - Bourques competition was really insane, which isn't really the case of any of the other top Dmen. It's not their fault, but I think that's exactly why Bourque gets underrated.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Prime Harvey not only was in the conversation for the Norris, he won it by massive margins every year he was healthy.

Bourque's one advantage over Harvey is that he came roaring out of the gate, while Harvey, kind of like Lidstrom, took a little while to hit his stride .

One thing about early Doug Harvey was that he was criticized heavily for his style of play. He truly was a misunderstood genius that revolutionized the game by not being a puck-rushing defenseman like the stars of old. The Montreal crowd booed him. Then everybody got it eventually.

How Doug Harvey loafed his way to fame | Maclean's | FEBRUARY 15 1958

 

[BenchBrawl]

(He should have a Hart anyway)

I don't think there's a good argument for the best defenseman post-Orr. Pre- Orr is tougher. Shore is a tough guy to gauge - it seems like around here at least his stock has lowered a tad due to a) discounting his Harts a bit due to different voting patterns pre-Norris, b) more criticism of his propensity for penalties, and c) relative lack of postseason success for a team of that strength. Harvey is a tough one. Hell - any of those 50s Habs are tough to rank because if you discount one, you kind of have to discount them all if the logic extends (absent significant evidence on either side of the dynasty that their rank is deserved). Probably more than any of the others, Harvey feels bolstered a bit by those Habs teams, so I would drop him a bit relative to Bourque.

IMO this is a completely insane take, considering what people saw, what most (old) people in Montreal are saying, and considering Harvey's age during the dynasty compared to the other players (he was in his absolute prime and driving the bus); not to mention superstars forwards filled the Top 6, he was alone with Tom Johnson on defense. Harvey didn't play in the 1870s, people that are alive saw him play, and unanimously hold him in high regard.

Find me one poster on hfboards who saw both Harvey and Bourque play and who rank Bourque ahead. Is there one? Dark Shadows used to rank Harvey over him IIRC. Canadiens1958 obviously rank Harvey ahead. Big Phil? Pretty sure he has Harvey on top too, but could be wrong. What about pappyline?

Harvey was CLEARLY a notch above almost everyone on the ice, except Jean Béliveau. Crystal clear. Old french people praise Harvey all the time; they have no ''racial'' reason to do it, Harvey is not a french-canadian. He's a Montreal native though.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not doubting hes the best of his generation, and by a good margin. But I mean, who is his competition? Red Kelly wasn't at his peak when Harvey was.

I dont know - Bourques competition was really insane, which isn't really the case of any of the other top Dmen. It's not their fault, but I think that's exactly why Bourque gets underrated.

There were a few years of overlap with peak Kelly. After him, Gadsby would be the best

 

[The Macho King]

There were a few years of overlap with peak Kelly. After him, Gadsby would be the best

Couple of seasons - okay. And Kelly is obviously a special talent.

But beyond that, Gadsby is borderline top 100? Meanwhile Bourque is rolling up against 7 top 100 players - and that's excluding guys like Robinson and Potvin who were *mostly* post-peak at that time.

I'm not saying there is no argument, but I will die on this "Bourque is historically underrated and the second best D of all time."

 

[BenchBrawl]

Couple of seasons - okay. And Kelly is obviously a special talent.

But beyond that, Gadsby is borderline top 100? Meanwhile Bourque is rolling up against 7 top 100 players - and that's excluding guys like Robinson and Potvin who were *mostly* post-peak at that time.

I'm not saying there is no argument, but I will die on this "Bourque is historically underrated and the second best D of all time."

Gadsby was so underrated in the Top 100 project...

 

[BenchBrawl]

It doesn't matter who Bourque was facing; in the late 80s, he was winning all the Norris if he played the full season. Likewise with Harvey. The movement below them is irrelevant because nobody could compete with their top level.

Pretty good chance Bourque beats Chelios if he plays the full season in 1989. That would have been 5 straight Norris.

Basically, Bourque lost a Norris to Leetch and Chelios at age 31 and 32 while playing the full season. That's fine, maybe Harvey never had to face such players. But Bourque was arguably already slightly past his peak play. Very slightly. You see his Norris record stays more or less the same but his Hart record takes a dive after 91. Is that because of the ''defensemen get no Hart'' phenomenon, which fluctuates bizarrely? I don't know.

 

[The Macho King]

It doesn't matter who Bourque was facing; in the late 80s, he was winning all the Norris if he played the full season. Likewise with Harvey. The movement below them is irrelevant because nobody could compete with their top level.

Pretty good chance Bourque beats Chelios if he plays the full season in 1989. That would have been 5 straight Norris.

Basically, Bourque lost a Norris to Leetch and Chelios at age 31 and 32 while playing the full season. That's fine, maybe Harvey never had to face such players. But Bourque was arguably already slightly past his peak play. Very slightly. You see his Norris record stays more or less the same but his Hart record takes a dive after 91. Is that because of the ''defensemen get no Hart'' phenomenon, which fluctuates bizarrely? I don't know.

At least from a trophy counting perspective, it is relevant though. Bourque couldn't miss 12 games and still win the Norris against his competition.

 

[BenchBrawl]

At least from a trophy counting perspective, it is relevant though. Bourque couldn't miss 12 games and still win the Norris against his competition.

Let's assume Bourque wins ALL those Norris. 8 straight Norris from 86-87 to 93-94. Then obviously we have to give the eighth Norris to Harvey too for missing some time. So they both have 8 straight Norris.

So Norris counting is perhaps not the best way to judge their level relative to each other.

Bourque would still have the longevity advantage. Harvey the playoff advantage. And people who saw both preferred Harvey. And Harvey was probably better at playing both sides (LD and RD), not only year by year but in games. And he controlled the game moreso than Bourque - who himself controlled it a lot.

I find it hard not to give the edge to Harvey.

I mean even @seventieslord, a guy known to value longevity a great deal, ranks Harvey over Bourque. Not using this as an argument but just to show that Harvey over Bourque is a widespread belief and I'm not seeing any convincing argument that it should be abandoned.

 

[BenchBrawl]

(That being said I'm not saying there's a huge gap between both, they are damn close)

 

[Voight]

Lidstrom won the Norris in 2001 by a comfortable margin over Bourque, but he was 10 years his senior at the time which is notable.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Gadsby was so underrated in the Top 100 project...

Nah

 

[BenchBrawl]

Lidstrom won the Norris in 2001 by a comfortable margin over Bourque, but he was 10 years his senior at the time which is notable.

As far as I remember Bourque played LD in 2001, which is his weak side. So it is a notable accomplishment to do so well at that age on your weak side.

 

[VanIslander]

One-man band
vs.
Orchestra member

 

[BenchBrawl]

One-man band
vs.
Orchestra member

More like a Maestro

 

[tinyzombies]

The one thing I always bring up about Bourque is how he was in the Norris conversation literally every single season he played. That kind of consistency is unheard of, except for maybe Howe. At his peak he was a machine, carrying the Bruins for almost 20 years and playing at a high level every year. Put him in an era without 99 & 66 at their peaks and he probably has a Hart or two at minimum.

Everyone always said Bourque got ripped off a few times re the Norris. Especially those years Coffey won.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Paul Coffey winning Norris trophies was a farce.

One of the most overrated player in the history of hockey.

 

[Voight]

Once he won it opened up the possibility of players like Karlsson and Burns winning it I.E. almost like a Art Ross for defencemen (sometimes tho, not every year)

 

[seventieslord]

Once he won it opened up the possibility of players like Karlsson and Burns winning it I.E. almost like a Art Ross for defencemen (sometimes tho, not every year)

Seeing Karlsson mentioned with the likes of Coffey and Burns (and Mike Green) has never sat right with me. Was he a more offensive than defensive player? Absolutely. But he wasn't just a really talented defenseman who took advantage of a powerful offensive team with great forwards and picked up a lot of points. He made that team. He was THE catalyst of that team. He was a point maker, not a point taker. Coffey was, too, to an extent, but he was not the most talented member of the team and may have been dragged from 110 to 140 points by Gretzky, it's tough to say exactly how much credit to give Gretzky for his outstanding results those two seasons.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Once he won it opened up the possibility of players like Karlsson and Burns winning it I.E. almost like a Art Ross for defencemen (sometimes tho, not every year)

Coffey never played defense. At all. He openly talked about not playing defense. He was gifted playing on a dynasty with the greatest offensive talent ever to grace the ice, another top 20 player ever in Messier, and a slew of other HOFer and above average players in Edmonton. Same thing in Pittsburgh. Same thing in Detroit.

Anyone can just use the excuse, "oh, well it was the 80's and early 90's, hockey was wide open", but the fact remains he rode the coattails of better players and never had to worry about the most important part of playing the blue line, and that is defending.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Coffey never played defense. At all. He openly talked about not playing defense. He was gifted playing on a dynasty with the greatest offensive talent ever to grace the ice, another top 20 player ever in Messier, and a slew of other HOFer and above average players in Edmonton. Same thing in Pittsburgh. Same thing in Detroit.

Anyone can just use the excuse, "oh, well it was the 80's and early 90's, hockey was wide open", but the fact remains he rode the coattails of better players and never had to worry about the most important part of playing the blue line, and that is defending.

Edmonton's strategy in the regular season was based on the fact that they were talented enough to coast through the regular season having fun and conserving energy, playing at a time when 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs.

In big games, their stars like Coffey actually did play acceptable defense. Of course, the Norris is based on regular season alone, so....

 

[tinyzombies]

I read that lately and it makes total sense. Kind of an anti-Babcock. Trotz kind of did that with the Caps, no? They spent the regular season laying back and then working on counter attacks where they would aim an entry to a particular spot, then they had set plays off of that. There was an article in the Post about it.

 

[tinyzombies]

IMO this is a completely insane take, considering what people saw, what most (old) people in Montreal are saying, and considering Harvey's age during the dynasty compared to the other players (he was in his absolute prime and driving the bus); not to mention superstars forwards filled the Top 6, he was alone with Tom Johnson on defense. Harvey didn't play in the 1870s, people that are alive saw him play, and unanimously hold him in high regard.

Find me one poster on hfboards who saw both Harvey and Bourque play and who rank Bourque ahead. Is there one? Dark Shadows used to rank Harvey over him IIRC. Canadiens1958 obviously rank Harvey ahead. Big Phil? Pretty sure he has Harvey on top too, but could be wrong. What about pappyline?

Harvey was CLEARLY a notch above almost everyone on the ice, except Jean Béliveau. Crystal clear. Old french people praise Harvey all the time; they have no ''racial'' reason to do it, Harvey is not a french-canadian. He's a Montreal native though.

Jean was the best player and Harvey was the most valuable.