Chelios vs Robinson

[Ziostilon]

Amazing that Chelios is still playing. Both players are legends though.

Who is the better player?
Christos Kostas Chelios or Larry Clark Robinson

Click to read more...

 

[Big Phil]

I'll ignore how Chelios is embarassing himself and how he got benched with Detroit in the playoffs last year and is unable to stick it with a rotten team like Atlanta. Because we can't forget what he DID do, even if he's senile today and can't let go.

That being said, Robinson was the more dominant defenseman. He could carry the puck better, he was a steady more physical force out there and had more of a winning tangible to him. Robinson was more of a leader, someone you looked to for guidance on the ice. I personally think he beats Chelios offensively and defensively.

 

[unknown33]

Robinson - Park vs. Chelios would be a better poll.

 

[mrhockey193195]

I'll ignore how Chelios is embarassing himself and how he got benched with Detroit in the playoffs last year and is unable to stick it with a rotten team like Atlanta. Because we can't forget what he DID do, even if he's senile today and can't let go.

That being said, Robinson was the more dominant defenseman. He could carry the puck better, he was a steady more physical force out there and had more of a winning tangible to him. Robinson was more of a leader, someone you looked to for guidance on the ice. I personally think he beats Chelios offensively and defensively.

I'm not trying to derail the thread here, but I wanted to ask you about Chelios. Am I the only person who actually gives a lot of props to Chelios for what he's doing in his late 40s? He's trying to play the game he loves, not for the money, but because he loves it (at least as far as I can tell). Even willing to play minor league hockey when he knew his skills had diminished, which has to be a tough pill to swallow for one of the greatest players ever, regardless of age. I honestly don't view him as embarrassing himself at all, he's not pretending that he's a star anymore, he just wants to go out and keep playing. I don't see anything wrong with it, and I'm actually very impressed by what he's been doing (off ice issues aside, of course).

And yes, for sure he's not adding to his legacy, but as you mentioned, he sure as hell isn't hurting it. What he's done in his prime years, no one can take away. And he's not pulling a Messier here (I'm as big a Messier fan as you'll find, but he was the perfect example of a guy who refused to believe that his abilities had diminished late in his career). He's not claiming he's still a star player and that he "deserves" ice time in the NHL. And someone correct me if I'm wrong (I very well could be), but my impression was that he never complained when he was getting benched in detroit.

But either way, to answer the question at hand, I have both Chelios and Robinson around the 9-13 range of best defensemen ever, with Robinson slightly ahead. I just feel that Robinson's playoff record and multiple Stanley Cups are the big factor. Not to say that Chelios was not successful in the playoffs, but Robinson won cups when he was in his prime and as the best defenseman on his team, which Chelios never did. Otherwise, there is not much separating the two IMO.

 

[mco543]

What Chelios is doing is remarkable and I'm sure the young defenseman who play with him on the Wolves are finding his presence as a teammate invaluable. I honestly hope he turns into hockey's version of Minnie Minoso and plays until he's in his mid 50's. It's not hurting his legacy one bit, in a way, playing this long and still going is turning into his legacy.

Chelios is far from embarrassing himself and I'd like to think most people find what he's doing to be amazing.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I chose "it's close". I technically give the edge to Robinson in all categories (offensively, defensively, puck moving/carrying, intangibles like leadership, etc), but I have a lot of respect for the kind of defender Chelios was in the first century of his prime. Enough so, that I just couldn't click the Big Bird button.

 

[seventieslord]

I chose "it's close" - the answer is Robinson but I don't think Robinson is ahead of Fetisov or Kelly, and I think the gap between him and Park/Chelios is quite small.

 

[Blades of Glory]

Did they ever play together regularly at even-strength when they were both in Montreal? I don't think so, but that would have been quite the defense pairing. Talk about physically terrifying. I can't really pick, though I have Robinson ranked a few slots higher than Chelios in all-time defense rankings.

I'll ignore how Chelios is embarassing himself and how he got benched with Detroit in the playoffs last year and is unable to stick it with a rotten team like Atlanta. Because we can't forget what he DID do, even if he's senile today and can't let go.

That being said, Robinson was the more dominant defenseman. He could carry the puck better, he was a steady more physical force out there and had more of a winning tangible to him. Robinson was more of a leader, someone you looked to for guidance on the ice. I personally think he beats Chelios offensively and defensively.

Agreed almost completely, except for physical play. Robinson was one of the most physically feared defensemen ever to play, but I have a hard time saying ANYONE was more physical than Chelios, especially from 1988-1996. His first four seasons in Chicago were some of the most spectacular displays of all-around defense I have ever seen. Hell, in his first Norris year, 1989, he had 8 fights. 8 fights! In 1992-93, he won the Norris while racking up a crazy 290 PIM. How can a guy be so good when he's in the box so often? It's because Chelios was feared. I'll never forget Darren McCarty's quote when Chelios was traded to Detroit. "It's the first time I've been so close to one of his sticks without it being broken over my head." You have to be pretty ridiculous for me to consider you more physical than Larry Robinson, but Chelios fits the bill, IMO. If anything, Robinson was a better open-ice hitter than Chelios, and that's probably it.

 

[tony d]

Going with Larry Robinson here.

 

[JaymzB]

Agreed almost completely, except for physical play. Robinson was one of the most physically feared defensemen ever to play, but I have a hard time saying ANYONE was more physical than Chelios, especially from 1988-1996. His first four seasons in Chicago were some of the most spectacular displays of all-around defense I have ever seen. Hell, in his first Norris year, 1989, he had 8 fights. 8 fights! In 1992-93, he won the Norris while racking up a crazy 290 PIM. How can a guy be so good when he's in the box so often? It's because Chelios was feared. I'll never forget Darren McCarty's quote when Chelios was traded to Detroit. "It's the first time I've been so close to one of his sticks without it being broken over my head." You have to be pretty ridiculous for me to consider you more physical than Larry Robinson, but Chelios fits the bill, IMO. If anything, Robinson was a better open-ice hitter than Chelios, and that's probably it.

Well, to be fair, part of the reason Robinson didn't have more fights is...no one (including goons) wanted to fight him. The story is he would skate into a scrum, wag his finger at the opponents, and they would generally back-off. At a certain point however, he almost became a charature of a tough guy, and was only going on reputation. If you haven't read The Game by Ken Dryden, you should. He has an excellent part devoted to this very thing.

 

[Blades of Glory]

Well, to be fair, part of the reason Robinson didn't have more fights is...no one (including goons) wanted to fight him. The story is he would skate into a scrum, wag his finger at the opponents, and they would generally back-off. At a certain point however, he almost became a charature of a tough guy, and was only going on reputation. If you haven't read The Game by Ken Dryden, you should. He has an excellent part devoted to this very thing.

Thanks for the information. I didn't know that, and it is rather enlightening. Reminds me of what Craig Laughlin said about what Dave Schultz told a player that hit Bill Barber (was it him?) once.

"Don't ever hit him again."

He didn't.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Robinson, but it's pretty close career value wise, but I voted Robinson. I have both in my top 10 all-time. At their best, Robinson, Chelios and Potvin are the most well rounded d-men I've seen in the NHL.

I'm hardly a plus/minus nut, but you have to give major props to Robinson for never having a minus season, having the career +/- lead and the 2nd best +/- ever recorded in a season (+120 or so in 76-77). I know I'll get flack for this, but Robinson's 76-77 season is the best season I've ever witnessed by a D-man. IMO he should have won the Hart that season. Chelios was never on that level and hence that's my tie-breaker.

 

[shazariahl]

I'm not trying to derail the thread here, but I wanted to ask you about Chelios. Am I the only person who actually gives a lot of props to Chelios for what he's doing in his late 40s? He's trying to play the game he loves, not for the money, but because he loves it (at least as far as I can tell). Even willing to play minor league hockey when he knew his skills had diminished, which has to be a tough pill to swallow for one of the greatest players ever, regardless of age. I honestly don't view him as embarrassing himself at all, he's not pretending that he's a star anymore, he just wants to go out and keep playing. I don't see anything wrong with it, and I'm actually very impressed by what he's been doing (off ice issues aside, of course).

And yes, for sure he's not adding to his legacy, but as you mentioned, he sure as hell isn't hurting it. What he's done in his prime years, no one can take away. And he's not pulling a Messier here (I'm as big a Messier fan as you'll find, but he was the perfect example of a guy who refused to believe that his abilities had diminished late in his career). He's not claiming he's still a star player and that he "deserves" ice time in the NHL. And someone correct me if I'm wrong (I very well could be), but my impression was that he never complained when he was getting benched in detroit.

But either way, to answer the question at hand, I have both Chelios and Robinson around the 9-13 range of best defensemen ever, with Robinson slightly ahead. I just feel that Robinson's playoff record and multiple Stanley Cups are the big factor. Not to say that Chelios was not successful in the playoffs, but Robinson won cups when he was in his prime and as the best defenseman on his team, which Chelios never did. Otherwise, there is not much separating the two IMO.

Exactly this. In fact, every word of this post is perfect.

 

[seventieslord]

Well, to be fair, part of the reason Robinson didn't have more fights is...no one (including goons) wanted to fight him. The story is he would skate into a scrum, wag his finger at the opponents, and they would generally back-off. At a certain point however, he almost became a charature of a tough guy, and was only going on reputation. If you haven't read The Game by Ken Dryden, you should. He has an excellent part devoted to this very thing.

Didn't Dryden say something like "he used to fight, but now he just wags his finger at guys"? Not in those exact words, of course, but something like that?

 

[JaymzB]

Didn't Dryden say something like "he used to fight, but now he just wags his finger at guys"? Not in those exact words, of course, but something like that?

Dryden at length (well would you expect anything less) described how Robinson did play tough at first (notably the hit on Dornhoefer), but gradually used his mere presence to dissuade opponents from taking liberties with the Habs. The problem became that the more he didn’t fight…the more he risked when he finally dropped the gloves. His teammates became worried that eventually he would fight, and lose, and his whole mystique would be gone. Inevitably he fought a goon from the Leafs (pre-season I think), and lost. Fortunately, nothing changed, or at least Dryden didn’t sense any change.

 

[Blades of Glory]

One of the main surprises for me by looking at the roster of those 1970's Montreal teams is that, despite playing in a tremendously physical era, the Habs really never had a "tough guy" or "goon" whose primary job was to protect Lafleur and the other stars. I guess that speaks even more volumes about Robinson and his ability to intimidate. Between the departure of John Ferguson (1970?) and the arrival of Chris Nilan (1981?) I don't see another tough guy on the roster. Boston was notoriously tough during that period, as were the Flyers, but the Habs still ran 'em over (literally thanks having the best open ice hitter in history, IMO)
Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16

 

[Canadiens1958]

Larry Robinson

Slight edge to Larry Robinson. More disciplined, especially off the ice, with greater offensive skills. More of a presence, better team leader.

Chelios and Robinson did play together at times in Montreal - Robinson used to be paired with rookies.

Chris Chelios was a better shot blocker, better along the boards.

 

[panorama01*]

The 1986 Stanley Cup team was "the worst Stanley Cup team ever" and only Patrick Roy bailed them out and they weren't good for the rest of the 1980s. Wait, that team had both Chelios and Robinson, I guess they weren't so bad after all.

 

[bruinsfan46]

Dryden at length (well would you expect anything less) described how Robinson did play tough at first (notably the hit on Dornhoefer), but gradually used his mere presence to dissuade opponents from taking liberties with the Habs. The problem became that the more he didn’t fight…the more he risked when he finally dropped the gloves. His teammates became worried that eventually he would fight, and lose, and his whole mystique would be gone. Inevitably he fought a goon from the Leafs (pre-season I think), and lost. Fortunately, nothing changed, or at least Dryden didn’t sense any change.

Yep, Dave Hutchinson in the preseason of 78-79.

Robinson for me, both tremendous defensemen who are close but Robinson was just a little better IMO.

 

[GNick42]

This shouldn't even be a poll....players are not even close

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

What Chelios is doing is remarkable and I'm sure the young defenseman who play with him on the Wolves are finding his presence as a teammate invaluable. I honestly hope he turns into hockey's version of Minnie Minoso and plays until he's in his mid 50's. It's not hurting his legacy one bit, in a way, playing this long and still going is turning into his legacy.

Chelios is far from embarrassing himself and I'd like to think most people find what he's doing to be amazing.

Once you've threatened the commissioner's family, its difficult to embarrass yourself ever again.

To me he wasn't as good as Robinson. But he is #3 on my list as greatest/dirtiest players ever.

 

[blowhardphil]

Robinson all the way

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Robinson has a sizeable edge in peak value. But Chelios has the edge in career value. But Robinson had great career value relative to his generation. But Chelios was at times the best in the world.

In the end, the big difference is this, Chelios' tough play could hurt his own team, while Robinson was a monster but never hurt his team. Therefore, I will always pick Robinson over Chelios.

 

[fireworks]

Larry Robinson

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Robinson has a sizeable edge in peak value. But Chelios has the edge in career value. But Robinson had great career value relative to his generation. But Chelios was at times the best in the world.

In the end, the big difference is this, Chelios' tough play could hurt his own team, while Robinson was a monster but never hurt his team. Therefore, I will always pick Robinson over Chelios.

Well said. As a Hawks fan, I remember some of Chelios' penalties being incredibly frustrating during his early years with the team.