Boston Bruins-3 best defensemen of all time?

[dafoomie]

You are right on the money with Bobby Orr and Eddie Shore, but I would consider Ray Bourque to be the 5th or 6th best D of all time. I would put Brad Park ahead of Ray Bourque and I would also put Nick Lidstrom ahead of Ray Bourque and then you also have Doug Harvey.

The Bruins had the best defencman who ever played the game and had Eddie Shore who along with Doug Harvey are a shoe in for the 2nd best of all time.

You're crazy if you put Park ahead of Bourque... I love Brad Park, but Ray Bourque is an all time top 5 defenseman. Park is not.

You could argue Bourque is #3, but its debatable. I think Bourque is undderrated by many around here, he was an elite defenseman for 20 years, and the very best in the league for at least a decade, in a class of great defensemen. 5 Norris trophies in an 8 year span screams dominance.

 

[raleh]

You're crazy if you put Park ahead of Bourque... I love Brad Park, but Ray Bourque is an all time top 5 defenseman. Park is not.

You could argue Bourque is #3, but its debatable. I think Bourque is undderrated by many around here, he was an elite defenseman for 20 years, and the very best in the league for at least a decade, in a class of great defensemen. 5 Norris trophies in an 8 year span screams dominance.

Yes but 8 Norris trophies in a 9 year span is even more dominant, while 4 Hart trophies may even trump that. #4 is definately as high as Bourque can be rated, and that's where he belongs.

 

[dafoomie]

Yes but 8 Norris trophies in a 9 year span is even more dominant, while 4 Hart trophies may even trump that. #4 is definately as high as Bourque can be rated, and that's where he belongs.

Thats a fair statement, I won't argue the point since I've never seen Harvey play.

All I'm going to say is that Bourque is clearly top 5, and none of his contemporaries could rank ahead of him.

 

[raleh]

Thats a fair statement, I won't argue the point since I've never seen Harvey play.

All I'm going to say is that Bourque is clearly top 5, and none of his contemporaries could rank ahead of him.

Agreed.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Bourque
Orr
Klusak

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

As a pairing though, did anyone do the job better than Robinson/Savard ?

Possibly Shore-Clapper. Obviously never saw them, but I shudder to think...And that combowas put together the year they broke their cup drought.

To me, the difference between Harvey and Shore is this, Harvey was the best defenceman of his era. Shore was the best player of his era. From what I've been able to gather, the big difference is, as good as Harvey was, players wouldn't be afraid to face him. Shore had that intimidation factor that gave him a psychological advantage over his opponents. They would be unconfident, afraid and apprehensive where they normally wouldn't be if Shore was near.

Orr-Shore-Bourque is 3 of the top 4 ever.

Orr-Shore
Bourque-Park
Clapper-Quakenbush
Flaman

is an absolutly sick defensive unit.

 

[Know Your Enemy]

Here's what the all-time defences might look like

Montreal Canadiens:
Doug Harvey-Sprague Cleghorn
Larry Robinson-Serge Savard
Chris Chelios-Jacques Laperriere
Guy Lapointe


Boston Bruins:
Bobby Orr-Eddie Shore
Brad Park-Ray Bourque
Bill Quackenbush-Dit Clapper
Fern Flaman

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Can you really say Cleghorn fits with one team? He only spent one season more with the Canadiens then he did with the Bruins. As good as he was, his, lets just say, "issues" burnt teams out easily.

 

[Randall Graves*]

Possibly Shore-Clapper. Obviously never saw them, but I shudder to think...And that combowas put together the year they broke their cup drought.

To me, the difference between Harvey and Shore is this, Harvey was the best defenceman of his era. Shore was the best player of his era. From what I've been able to gather, the big difference is, as good as Harvey was, players wouldn't be afraid to face him. Shore had that intimidation factor that gave him a psychological advantage over his opponents. They would be unconfident, afraid and apprehensive where they normally wouldn't be if Shore was near.

Orr-Shore-Bourque is 3 of the top 4 ever.

Orr-Shore
Bourque-Park
Clapper-Quakenbush
Flaman

is an absolutly sick defensive unit.

Kind of OT, but it is amazing how much history and all time greats the original 6 teams had, granted there were only 6 teams for a long period but still when you think of todays game..you are lucky if your favorite team has one of those types over a 10 year span..

 

[raleh]

Can you really say Cleghorn fits with one team? He only spent one season more with the Canadiens then he did with the Bruins. As good as he was, his, lets just say, "issues" burnt teams out easily.

I would agree that we have to take Cleghorn off of the habs unit...sometimes I even have a hard time putting Chelios in there. If Cleghorn is removed I would add Tom Johnson. You're right that Shore and Orr were the only two defencemen that were the best players of their era, but I wouldn't say people weren't afraid to go up against Harvey. Maybe they weren't scared for their lives like they would have been against Shore, but I don't think there was a guy in the league that Harvey couldn't handle. I've heard the same stories over and over again from my grandfather (although probably skewed) about 60 minute battles between Harvey and Howe. One problem I have with Shore is his temper. I've read that he would take stupid penalties at stupid times due to pride, etc. I've heard Red Horner tell stories about King Clancy getting Shore to take penalties late in games, and this would be at a time when more than one goal could be scored during the powerplay.

However, as much as I argue this, if I was in an all time draft and had to choose between the two of them I would probably take the whole time limit.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Robinson over Bourque ? The homer in me is tempted to agree but I think Bourque was dominant with less, if that makes any sense. Robinson was fearless in that he'd try a high risk pass up the middle, confident that Serge would cover up, or he'd just get the goal back later.

Bourque just owned his side of the ice. The one thing about Bourque is that while he put up numbers early in his career, I thought he was vulnerable one on one. Sometimes we tend to think they entered the league great when it isn't the case.

I guess if I'm drafting, I take Bourque first, but I'd rather someone else took him before, because if Robinson's not my all time favorite, he's pretty close.

I know I'm in the clear minority, but having seen all three for all of their careers, I just thought Robinson and Potvin brought more to a team than Bourque. Same with Chelios. Call it intangibles that can't be measured in stats or trophies. If I need a guy to play an 80 game season, I probably take Bourque. But if I need a guy to help me win the cup at all costs, I go with Robinson, Potvin and Chelios in that order. Bourque is a very nice man, and should be commended for that, but if I need to win the cup, I want a guy who can play it just a bit dirtier if you know what I mean. Call it the 'will run over his mother to win' factor.

 

[dafoomie]

I know I'm in the clear minority, but having seen all three for all of their careers, I just thought Robinson and Potvin brought more to a team than Bourque. Same with Chelios. Call it intangibles that can't be measured in stats or trophies. If I'm need a guy to play an 80 game season, I probably take Bourque. But if I need a guy to help me win the cup at all costs, I go with Robinson, Potvin and Chelios in that order.

Clear minority? Try lunatic fringe. I doubt you know very much about Bourque if you're going to make a statement like that.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Clear minority? Try lunatic fringe. I doubt you know very much about Bourque if you're going to make a statement like that.

I'll take the cups thank you. I doubt you know anything about Chelios, Robinson and Potvin if you think it's lunacy to rate them ahead of Bourque. It's arguable and no where as clear cut as you state. I take those guys ahead of Bourque because they were winners.

 

[Famous Flames]

I doubt you know anything about Chelios, Robinson and Potvin if you think it's lunacy to rate them ahead of Bourque.

Gotta agree with Joe here. Bourque was a great player surely, but Chelios, Robinson and Potvin were great too. I'd personally rank Potvin over him without much hesitation.

 

[Bluesfan1981]

Can you really say Cleghorn fits with one team? He only spent one season more with the Canadiens then he did with the Bruins. As good as he was, his, lets just say, "issues" burnt teams out easily.

Yeah he fits in much more with Montreal, because his best years were in Ottawa and Montreal. His three seasons in Boston were at the end of his career, when he wasn't the player he was in Ottawa and Montreal.

 

[Know Your Enemy]

Yeah he fits in much more with Montreal, because his best years were in Ottawa and Montreal. His three seasons in Boston were at the end of his career, when he wasn't the player he was in Ottawa and Montreal.

He also won two cups with Montreal.

 

[BM67]

He also won two cups with Montreal.

Actually he only won one with Montreal, the '25 Canadiens lost to Victoria in the Cup Final, but he was the captain.

 

[arrbez]

Kind of OT, but it is amazing how much history and all time greats the original 6 teams had, granted there were only 6 teams for a long period but still when you think of todays game..you are lucky if your favorite team has one of those types over a 10 year span..

Equally off topic, but it's something I was just thinking about the other day...

As a Toronto fan, it amazes me how few of the truly elite all-time greats the Leafs had during the original 6 period, despite being vastly more successful than 4 of the other 5 teams during that era. I don't mean to hijack the thread, my point is it just goes to show that unlike many other sports, a championship team is more than just star players.

 

[Kirk- NEHJ]

1. Bobby Orr
2. Ray Bourque
3. Eddie Shore

Honorable Mention:

Aubrey "Dit" Clapper
Brad Park

 

[John Flyers Fan]

1. Bobby Orr
2. Ray Bourque
3. Eddie Shore

I love Bourque, but only Howe and Gretzky have more than Shore's 4 Hart trophies. I think that has to give him the nod over Bourque.

 

[dafoomie]

I'll take the cups thank you. I doubt you know anything about Chelios, Robinson and Potvin if you think it's lunacy to rate them ahead of Bourque. It's arguable and no where as clear cut as you state. I take those guys ahead of Bourque because they were winners.

Chis Chelios is clearly on a level beneath Bourque. They're within two years of each other agewise, and Chelios was never considered to be as good or better than Bourque at any point in his career, Bourque was indisputably the best of his era.

You have a leg to stand on with Potvin and Robinson, since their best years did not coincide, but I would strongly disagree. Potvin is probably closer than Robinson is.

Here's a link to The Hockey News's top 50 players from 98, its interesting to see a different perspective.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0760194.html

They've got:
Bobby Orr (2)
Doug Harvey (6)
Eddie Shore (10)
Ray Bourque (14)
Denis Potvin (19)
Red Kelly (22)
Larry Robinson (24)
Paul Coffey (28)
Chris Chelios (40)
Dit Clapper (41)
Tim Horton (43)
Brad Park (49)

Regarding this list, I think Dit Clapper should be higher, Chelios and Coffey a notch or two lower, and Tim Horton much lower. I'd certainly move Park ahead of him. Lidstrom is absent as well.

 

[1971]

You're crazy if you put Park ahead of Bourque... I love Brad Park, but Ray Bourque is an all time top 5 defenseman. Park is not.

You could argue Bourque is #3, but its debatable. I think Bourque is undderrated by many around here, he was an elite defenseman for 20 years, and the very best in the league for at least a decade, in a class of great defensemen. 5 Norris trophies in an 8 year span screams dominance.

The only reason Brad Park didnt win Norris trophys when he was with the Rangers is because of Bobby Orr. I'd take Brad Park over Ray Bouque any day.

 

[arrbez]

Chis Chelios is clearly on a level beneath Bourque. They're within two years of each other agewise, and Chelios was never considered to be as good or better than Bourque at any point in his career, Bourque was indisputably the best of his era.

Um...Chelios did win the Norris Trophy 3 times...

 

[1971]

Gotta agree with Joe here. Bourque was a great player surely, but Chelios, Robinson and Potvin were great too. I'd personally rank Potvin over him without much hesitation.

Potvin QB'd 4 straight cups and 5 straight finals for his Islanders. Thats just amazing. If you look at their careers in terms of playoff performance, I'd have to put Potvin, Chelios, Serge Savard and Larry Robinson all ahead of Bourque. I loved Bourque, but he didnt bring Boston a cup. Potvin 4 cups, Chelios 4? or 5?, Savard 6? Robinson 6?.

 

[arrbez]

Potvin QB'd 4 straight cups and 5 straight finals for his Islanders. Thats just amazing. If you look at their careers in terms of playoff performance, I'd have to put Potvin, Chelios, Serge Savard and Larry Robinson all ahead of Bourque. I loved Bourque, but he didnt bring Boston a cup. Potvin 4 cups, Chelios 4? or 5?, Savard 6? Robinson 6?.

Chelios only won 2 cups, neither were truly in his prime either (although 2002 was a hell of a season for him).