1971
Registered User
Chelios only won 2 cups, neither were truly in his prime either (although 2002 was a hell of a season for him).
I wasn't sure and I'm being lazy so I didnt look it up.
Chelios only won 2 cups, neither were truly in his prime either (although 2002 was a hell of a season for him).
I wasn't sure and I'm being lazy so I didnt look it up.
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.
I'm not arguing he should be on Boston, so much as I think a player who spent four years with a team can't really call that team home. I wouldn't assign him to a team.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.
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.
And that proves?Um...Chelios did win the Norris Trophy 3 times...
And that proves?
Are you seriously going to argue that Chelios was better than Bourque? I find that laughable.
And that proves?
Are you seriously going to argue that Chelios was better than Bourque? I find that laughable.
Here's what a second Canadiens unit might look like
J.C. Tremblay-Tom Johnson
Ken Reardon-Butch Bouchard
Eric Desjardins-Sylvio Mantha
Terry Harper
You could also make a case for Jean-Guy Talbot
I The Bruins second unit would have guys like Leo Boivin, Flash Hollet, Doug Mohns, Jack Crawford, Lionel Hitchman, Dallas Smith, and Don Sweeney.
I personally have Robinson and Potvin ahead on my list. Bourque was a great player, but IMO Robinson and Potvin could do more things at a A level than Bourque. I know I'm in the minority in rating Robinson ahead of those guys, but there is something to be said for a d-man who was never a - player in his career, and has the best career +/- of any player ever. I just don't think Bourque had the killer instinct Robinson and Potvin had either.
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
The only thing Lidstrom is better at than Bourque is speaking Swedish.
Can the argument be made that the Boston Bruins had the 3 best defensemen in NHL history for the bulk of their careers? Of course i'm talking about Bobby Orr, Eddie Shore(this seems to be a consensus top 2)and Ray Bourque.
And if you want to stretch it further you could say they had 4 of the top 10 of all time if you include Brad Park.
It's all a matter of opinion. Really depends on what you value more in a d-man as to who you would rather have. No doubt I'd rather have a 32 year old or older Bourque over those guys at that age. But personally I'd rather have a 21-32 year old Robinson or Potvin over a 21-32 year old Bourque. Bourque definetly maintained great play over a longer period of time. Probably one of the best conditioned hockey players I've seen.
One things for sure, they were all great players.
I think we tend to forget that Bourque took time learning to play D in the nHL. He put up points from Day 1 but he didin;t step into th eleague that solid in his own end. He obviously became great in all aspects, but he had the learning curve that most do. Robinson declined late in his careeer and he'd always try the suicide pass, but I don't know that I'd say he took any years off though.I always thought Bourque was considered better than Chelios.
Chelly won the Norris in Montreal next to an aging Robinson who played stay-at-home, but it took him until the mid-90s to really come into his own. He took a lot of dumb penalties up until then.
Bourque was a much more valuable player right from the start. He also had the wider body and could match anything Chelios could do. I'd have to give Bourque the nod.
As for Robinson. I think Big Larry took a lot of years off. He was the kind of guy who only played when it mattered. I guess all those Cups took a lot out of him. I would put Bourque ahead of Larry for consistency. And Larry turned the puck over in his own end later in his career, something Bourque never did.
Potvin is tougher. Because I always thought Potvin was like Bourque, but dirtier and rougher. I always thought Potvin had the nod. But injuries shortened Potvin's career while Bourque played a long, effective career. Right from the start, and right to the end. Very effective all the way through. Then again, if Bourque had won four straight Cups like Robinson and Potvin, it would have shortened his career too no doubt.
I think Markov is quickly creeping up there too mateThere are also guys like Ted Green, Pat Egan, George Owen, Glen Wesley and Carol Vadnais if you want to make up a 3rd unit.
Bourque is better than Harvey, hes got him beat by 8 years on longevity. Just compare thier competition for the norris trophy, its not even close. Bourque competed against a far more talented crop. Bourque> Harvey anyday.