Brian Leetch: very underrated on hfboards?

[Bryce Newman]

It seems as if every time I read a thread on the history of hockey forum on here regarding great defensemen, Brian Leetch never gets the credit he deserves.

Growing up in the 90s Leetch to me was always regarded as the premiere defenseman in the league, taking over the title from Ray Bourque.

But nowadays, people remember Bourque as some God-like player while Leetch is remembered as just being "good". Huh?

There was one thread I read where many thought AL Macinnis was the better defenseman and Leetch was more on Niedermayer's level. And I'm thinking to myself "wtf?" because that seems like such a slap in the face to Leetch.

Why is Leetch remembered so poorly around here? He's arguably the best defenseman of the 90s yet he gets very little respect on hfboards. Why?

Click to read more...

 

[TheBloodyNine]

He's the answer to every trivia question

 

[Zats Muccarello]

Brian Leetch is the man

 

[mrhockey193195]

HOH rates Leetch in the 20-30 range all time for defensemen, which to me is right on the money and no insult whatsoever. He's in the class with MacInnis, Stevens, Pronger (many will have those three a few spots above Leetch, but an argument can be made in either direction) and a few others. Bourque is undoubtedly a top-5 defenseman of all time and in class above Leetch due to his consistent brilliance and longevity.

 

[NYR94]

I've noticed that on the history of hockey board too. I think one thing that hurts Leetch in the minds of other fans is he doesn't have the longevity some of the other greats like Bourque or Lidstrom had. Also the last time Leetch was on a team that was actually good (save for the short stint with the 2004 Leafs) was when he was 28. It's pretty crazy to think about, the guy basically never played for a good team in his 30s. His Rangers career basically spanned the highest of highs with the Cup in 94 and the lowest of lows with the dark ages.

 

[aufheben]

He is actually underrated on HFBoards.

It’s the long-standing hockey tradition of “defensemen known for offense are literally Satan”.

 

[FireGerardGallant]

Said it on the Adam Fox thread on the main board but what Dman is able to score 102 points thats just insane. Erik Karlsson is by far the most talented dman Ive ever watched and his season high in points pails to leetchs

 

[aufheben]

Ask yourself: how many of today’s young, puck-moving studs are in the NHL because of Brian Leetch? Approx. 100%? Your Fox, Hughes, Makar, McAvoy, DeAngelo, Hamilton, Werenski, Theodore, and so on.

Not to mention the previous wave of guys like Carlson, Del Zotto, Shattenkirk, Faulk, Krug, Yandle, Fowler, etc.

Think it’s a coincidence that almost all of these players are from the United States?...(I don’t know who Trouba’s favorite player was growing up, unfortunately.)

 

[Kupo]

I think 90% of other fans that talk about Leetch, never actually watched him play the game.

I recall some dumbass saying he was shit in his own zone and completely 1 dimensional.

Sometimes, I find myself wishing I can run into some of these people irl and pound my fist against their faces. Is that too much to ask for, God..?!

 

[Crease]

The HOH subforum is pretty on the money, as @mrhockey193195 mentioned. The main board tends to think of Leetch as a pure offensive defenseman that was a liability in his own zone, but that’s because the main board gravitates towards extreme viewpoints.

 

[SML2]

I've noticed that on the history of hockey board too. I think one thing that hurts Leetch in the minds of other fans is he doesn't have the longevity some of the other greats like Bourque or Lidstrom had. Also the last time Leetch was on a team that was actually good (save for the short stint with the 2004 Leafs) was when he was 28. It's pretty crazy to think about, the guy basically never played for a good team in his 30s. His Rangers career basically spanned the highest of highs with the Cup in 94 and the lowest of lows with the dark ages.

This.
Leetch at his best was one of the best. It didn't last long because the team around him got so bad so fast. Loyalty is a crazy thing, because if the Rangers realized that the cup team wasn't going last and blew it up they may have made it back to the top quicker. If Leetch wasn't loyal to the team he would have called it for the train wreck it was and demanded a trade. So noboody won. That's life sometimes.

 

[Edge]

I think he loses points for many because he didn’t match the longevity of some of his peers.

And in some cases, there’s probably a lot of posters who never saw Leetch in his prime.

 

[Machinehead]

My favorite is when they compare him to Stevens.

I would take Leetch over three Scott Stevens. And there are seasons where would outscore three of them.

 

[UnSandvich]

When I did the HFBoards all-time draft waaay back when (like it started almost a year ago, damn), Leetch ended up the 12th Dman off the board, ahead of guys like Fetisov, Kelly, MacInnis, and Park

 

[ElLeetch]

No surprise, given the age range skew on here.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Yes, for several reasons:

1. Leetch was American playing for an American team that spent money. Canadian media establishment never liked that combination unless the player was overwhelmingly dominant.

2. Leetch was never respected for his defense, which was criminally underrated.

3. Rangers sucked for his final 7 seasons. Hurt his production and standing among NHL elites. Cost him a lot of Norris votes.

The bottom line is simple — Leetch, outside of Bobby Orr, had the greatest single postseason run of any defenseman in league history. It will never be duplicated, especially when you factor in the weight of a 54 year jinx, and two 7-game series in the CF and SCF.

 

[mrhockey193195]

My favorite is when they compare him to Stevens.

I would take Leetch over three Scott Stevens. And there are seasons where would outscore three of them.

There is no question Leetch was the better offensive defenseman, but just some food for thought - in 93-94, Leetch had 79 points in 84 games, and Stevens had 78 points in 83 games. Stevens was a fantastic offensive defenseman in addition to being absolutely stellar and ruthless in his own zone. Only after 93-94 did he completely shift his game and stop scoring points.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

And with all due respect to Ray Bourque and Lidstrom, neither ever came close to having a postseason like Leetch did. Anybody who watched all 23 postseason games that year saw Leetch dominate independently of what Messier did.

Bourque had a lot of playoff flops in Boston after a dominant regular season on contending teams.

 

[Machinehead]

There is no question Leetch was the better offensive defenseman, but just some food for thought - in 93-94, Leetch had 79 points in 84 games, and Stevens had 78 points in 83 games. Stevens was a fantastic offensive defenseman in addition to being absolutely stellar and ruthless in his own zone. Only after 93-94 did he completely shift his game and stop scoring points.

That's because he couldn't do both. Leetch could.

Leetch never had to shift his game to excel at defense or lead his team to the Cup.

 

[mrhockey193195]

That's because he couldn't do both. Leetch could.

Leetch never had to shift his game to excel at defense or lead his team to the Cup.

Categorically false. Lemaire's defensive system went into overdrive after 94 and Stevens bought in. He was a better defensive defenseman than Leetch for the entirety of their careers, even while Stevens was also putting up points (that's no slight to Leetch's defense, just a massive compliment to Stevens).

 

[Steve Kournianos]

49 percent of Coffey’s 37 points in the 1985 playoffs involved Gretzky.

35 percent of Leetch’s 34 points in 1994 points involved Messier

 

[Machinehead]

Categorically false. Lemaire's defensive system went into overdrive after 94 and Stevens bought in. He was a better defensive defenseman than Leetch for the entirety of their careers, even while Stevens was also putting up points (that's no slight to Leetch's defense, just a massive compliment to Stevens).

That's not to say Stevens was ever bad defensively, but the defensive work that he's remembered for was 94-95 and after, when the Devils won Cups. During that time, he scored 30 points once.

He had to sacrifice his offense almost completely to hit that level. The upper echelon of defenseman all-time, which is Leetch is in, don't have to do that.

Bourque, Zubov, Lidstrom, Pronger, and even Gonchar all won Cups late in their careers and didn't see their offense completely cave by nearly 60 points.

 

[mrhockey193195]

That's not to say Stevens was ever bad defensively, but the defensive work that he's remembered for was 94-95 and after, when the Devils won Cups. During that time, he scored 30 points once.

He had to sacrifice his offense almost completely to hit that level. The upper echelon of defenseman all-time, which is Leetch is in, don't have to do that.

Bourque, Zubov, Lidstrom, Pronger, and even Gonchar all won Cups late in their careers and didn't see their offense completely cave by nearly 60 points.

Agree to disagree, I guess. Stevens was elite defensively in the late 80s and early 90s. I will agree that his legend grew in the late 90s and as NJ was winning cups. And Zubov most certainly did sacrifice his offense when he went to Dallas and became the all-around defenseman people assume he was in NY and PIT (hell, he scored roughly the same number of even strength points as Derian Hatcher in those years). I agree that Bourque & Lidstrom were well balanced and elite in all facets of the game their whole careers...that's why they are both top 10, arguably both top 5 defensemen of all time.

 

[Synergy27]

That's not to say Stevens was ever bad defensively, but the defensive work that he's remembered for was 94-95 and after, when the Devils won Cups. During that time, he scored 30 points once.

He had to sacrifice his offense almost completely to hit that level. The upper echelon of defenseman all-time, which is Leetch is in, don't have to do that.

Bourque, Zubov, Lidstrom, Pronger, and even Gonchar all won Cups late in their careers and didn't see their offense completely cave by nearly 60 points.

Part of Stevens offensive drop off needs to be attributed to the end of the high flying 80s/early 90s scoring era as well. I don’t have the numbers handy but I’d be shocked to see anything other than a strong correlation to descending league wide GPG.

 

[Machinehead]

Part of Stevens offensive drop off needs to be attributed to the end of the high flying 80s/early 90s scoring era as well. I don’t have the numbers handy but I’d be shocked to see anything other than a strong correlation to descending league wide GPG.

Yes but all of those guys I mentioned were capable of putting up 50, 60 points in the DPE.

I feel excuses get made for Stevens that wouldn't be made for anybody else because he was on Cup-winning teams.

The guy was just a black hole offensively the second half of his career. It's really as simple as that.

Agree to disagree, I guess. Stevens was elite defensively in the late 80s and early 90s. I will agree that his legend grew in the late 90s and as NJ was winning cups. And Zubov most certainly did sacrifice his offense when he went to Dallas and became the all-around defenseman people assume he was in NY and PIT (hell, he scored roughly the same number of even strength points as Derian Hatcher in those years). I agree that Bourque & Lidstrom were well balanced and elite in all facets of the game their whole careers...that's why they are both top 10, arguably both top 5 defensemen of all time.

If he was elite defensively before that, then he just declined