HOH Top Defensive Forwards of All Time List?

Trap Jesus

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
28,686
13,456
I see what you're saying. And yes, that's true.

What I was trying to say is that while players were on the ice for both, they primarily had one role, one or the other, on the ice. If you go back far enough, nobody cared about how many points a dman scored at all.

And then, things changed, and you had dmen that also scored. Then there was still more of a division between dmen who scored and dmen who only defended. Now, everyone looks at what they do in both aspects.

Same goes for forwards. Nobody cared how much forwards broke up plays in the defensive end when you go back far enough. That was a dman's job.
I think people still want to apply this logic to today's game, and knock players' defensive ability because of it if they're heavily featured in the offense. For the person who thinks that Bergeron's defensive peak was 2010-2015, I'm sure it's in large part due to utilization for offensive zone faceoffs with the Bruins coaching change. I think there's a tendency to believe that just because he's seeing an increase in O-zone faceoffs that he's neglecting his defensive duties in some way, but that couldn't be further from the truth. When Anisimov was starting 2/3 of his shifts in the O-zone between Panarin and Kane, did he all of a sudden completely change the way he played? Different lines have players with different roles on them, it can't be looked at as a black and white thing. With a shift to a less conservative system, it means he's going to see more high risk situations with Marchand and Pastrnak challenging the opposition with one-on-one moves, something that Cassidy has greatly encouraged. Bergeron hasn't changed the way he plays defensively whatsoever this decade, it's always the same. He's still supporting everyone on the ice just the same.
 

Trap Jesus

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
28,686
13,456
I'd say both in Carbonneau's case. Against Gretzky thing along the lines of Zetterberg vs Crosby from 2008 and 2009. Against Gretzky you were not going to outwit him so you pretty much needed to be all over him.
Something that I've always been curious about is how much man-on-man or attack dog defense relative to more cerebral play was valued back in the day vs. how much it is now, or even how much the structure has changed for something like that. Like reading the description of Gainey, he seemed like a very straight-lined, singular focus player. I've read things about him like he shadowed the top wingers, but I don't know how that makes much sense when you're a winger in coverage in the defensive zone, unless it was so disorganized that they didn't play with even basic D-zone coverage.

Some people raise their arms up about the center "bias" for Selke voting now, but there's just so much more heavy lifting for a center relative to a wing, and you need to be so much more defensively conscious to play it effectively. A massive part of a center's job is to provide support to his teammates, especially in the D-zone. Looking back at Selke voting, it was so common to have wingers up there, I just wonder how much of it was for more of those splash plays, or for that "shadowing" aspect with some of the centers (or I guess wingers too, if some of them did it).

I think you see a lot of that in all sports when you have more limited footage or numbers; there's always a big emphasis on man-on-man defending compared to zone. I remember Nnamdi Asomugha in the NFL was the consensus best CB for a while, because he'd always go head-to-head against the best WR and essentially never give them anything. You can see his value in that, but when you look at overall impact he's not giving you anything else. It's a very singular focus, and he wasn't even trying to bait QBs into throwing his way, it was just a very simple strategy. He did his very specific job almost flawlessly, but how much did it really help the Raiders D overall? He signed in Philly where they had him play more zone and got shredded.

In hockey it's a bit different than something like football. Like in football there's still definitive value in a CB locking down a top WR. With hockey I don't see that as being as realistic of a strategy if you're so singularly focused.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,540
28,739
Something that I've always been curious about is how much man-on-man or attack dog defense relative to more cerebral play was valued back in the day vs. how much it is now, or even how much the structure has changed for something like that. Like reading the description of Gainey, he seemed like a very straight-lined, singular focus player. I've read things about him like he shadowed the top wingers, but I don't know how that makes much sense when you're a winger in coverage in the defensive zone, unless it was so disorganized that they didn't play with even basic D-zone coverage.

Some people raise their arms up about the center "bias" for Selke voting now, but there's just so much more heavy lifting for a center relative to a wing, and you need to be so much more defensively conscious to play it effectively. A massive part of a center's job is to provide support to his teammates, especially in the D-zone. Looking back at Selke voting, it was so common to have wingers up there, I just wonder how much of it was for more of those splash plays, or for that "shadowing" aspect with some of the centers (or I guess wingers too, if some of them did it).

I think you see a lot of that in all sports when you have more limited footage or numbers; there's always a big emphasis on man-on-man defending compared to zone. I remember Nnamdi Asomugha in the NFL was the consensus best CB for a while, because he'd always go head-to-head against the best WR and essentially never give them anything. You can see his value in that, but when you look at overall impact he's not giving you anything else. It's a very singular focus, and he wasn't even trying to bait QBs into throwing his way, it was just a very simple strategy. He did his very specific job almost flawlessly, but how much did it really help the Raiders D overall? He signed in Philly where they had him play more zone and got shredded.

In hockey it's a bit different than something like football. Like in football there's still definitive value in a CB locking down a top WR. With hockey I don't see that as being as realistic of a strategy if you're so singularly focused.
Eh - it also frees up a safety to focus somewhere else. NFL is basically 7 defenders versus 5 offensive threats on any given down (4 rushers versus 5 blockers + QB). If you can take one of those out one on one, that leaves you with 6 on 4 odds, which is better. Part of it is systems based, but eliminating an offensive threat one on one is always a plus.
 

Trap Jesus

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
28,686
13,456
Eh - it also frees up a safety to focus somewhere else. NFL is basically 7 defenders versus 5 offensive threats on any given down (4 rushers versus 5 blockers + QB). If you can take one of those out one on one, that leaves you with 6 on 4 odds, which is better. Part of it is systems based, but eliminating an offensive threat one on one is always a plus.
Do you think this kind of strategy in hockey makes as much sense?
 

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,506
3,055
The Maritimes
Was Carbonneau known for shadowing or being more cerebral? I came across this clip of Steve Kasper, and you'd never see something like this nowadays with defensive systems in place. You still get match-up centers, and Bergeron has been that for a huge part of his career, but it's never been a white-on-rice thing to a specific guy, it's just overall influence. 35 seconds into this clip:


Carbonneau generally didn't "shadow". But when you are playing against the top offensive lines, of course you are going to be in close contact a significant part of the time. And it depends on the particular opposition player, and the composition of the other line.

But Carbonneau was an extremely smart player. When I watched him in the mid-'80s, I thought - at the time - that he was just about the smartest hockey player I'd ever seen. He had great anticipation - he picked off a lot of passes, he was an extraordinary shot-blocker, he was a tireless skater, decent talent with the puck, played great under pressure, scored a lot of big goals.

He just won battles, and came away with the puck, and stopped the other team from making plays....all over the ice.

One of the reasons he played well against offensive stars is that he was smarter than the vast majority of them.

And when you have a really good defensive line, the effectiveness of their play can mean than this defensive line ends up outplaying their opponents both offensively and defensively.

A very good and highly effective player. And, like everybody, he had his weaknesses too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trap Jesus

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,506
3,055
The Maritimes
Hey man, ranking historical players is one of the major activity we do in this section, and this has been going on since before my time, and as you can see I registered almost exactly 10 years ago. Do you see how silly your crusade is? Even if you're right, here you have a bunch of people who made it a hobby to research hockey history and rank historical players for over 10+ years, and you pop up in 2018 and tell them: "Hey guys, sorry but what you've been doing for 10+ years is wrong, stop doing it, we can't do that".

Good luck with that, mon frère.

As far as writing a book, what we have written about Frank Nighbor on this site could certainly fill one, so why does it matter whether it's in book form or on the site? It's a nice idea sure, but not one I would currently spend my time on. Go in the ATD section and check out the biographies, there are countless of them full of original research directly from the newspaper sources.
The only thing I said is that you cannot do anything close to a good evaluation of a hockey player who you haven't seen play, and that if you try to do so, you are certainly going to get it wrong (and likely wrong by quite a lot).

I said this in the context of Frank Nighbor and his defensive play, which is what this thread is about. But it also applies to a player's overall play, obviously.

There is nothing controversial about what I said. Is there anybody in the hockey world who would disagree with what I said?

With respect to player rankings in general, I'm not suggesting you stop doing them. You can do whatever you want. The only thing I said about rankings is that, in my opinion, players you haven't seen play, like Nighbor, should not be compared to players that you have seen play.

I think it does a disservice to hockey history to try to rank players you haven't seen play, and I think there are much better ways to recognize historical players from long ago.

Finally, I think anybody doing these types of rankings should learn to accept criticism. You cannot expect other people to adhere to your rankings (which are obviously merely your personal opinion), or to agree with your rankings, or even to take them seriously.
 
Last edited:

voyageur

Hockey fanatic
Jul 10, 2011
9,467
8,157
I'll throw my all-defensive forward team out there.

Gainey - Fedorov - Lehtinen
Dave Poulin - Datsyuk - Claude Provost
Madden - Gilmour - Jack Walker (The inventor of the poke check)
Craig Ramsay - Peca - Marty Pavelich
Kesler

Yes. I'm aware that Bergeron isn't on this list.

Or Guy Carbonneau, the guy shut down Gretzky, and just about every other top scorer. Just made the HHOF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OgeeOgelthorpe

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,506
3,055
The Maritimes
I for one think that most people’s opinions if most players, past or contemporary, are shaped more by what you’ve heard than what what you’ve seen. I’d have to watch an incredible amount of hockey (and remember it, too) to think otherwise.
It depends to what extent....

Looking beyond Frank Nighbor, if people who are ranking Guy Lafleur and Brad Park haven't seen them play either, then that's even much worse.

Of course we hear lots about players, but you better be watching them a significant amount too.
 
Last edited:

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,201
17,552
Connecticut
It depends to what extent....

Looking beyond Frank Nighbor, if people who are ranking Guy Lafleur and Brad Park haven't seen them play either, then that's even much worse.

Of course we hear lots about players, but you better be watching them a significant amount too.

Most people never saw Gordie Howe play.

Is he difficult to rank?
 

Johnny Engine

Moderator
Jul 29, 2009
4,965
2,345
Most people never saw Gordie Howe play.

Is he difficult to rank?
I suppose it would depend on what you intend to get from watching.

If you're wanting to rubber-stamp what you know about him from statistics and contemporary accounts by affirming that he did, in fact exist in the flesh, we have enough footage for that. Gordie Howe existed.
If you need to get a sense of how he looked, moved and skated on the ice, we've got that.
If you want to compare his most impressive highlights against those of Bobby Orr and Mario Lemieux, we've got an organization problem. You didn't always have someone cutting and saving the best stuff for commercials and montages in the 50s.
If you want to get a general sense of how involved/dominant he was, shift in shift out, the people who watched full games in his prime are all very old and dying off.
If you need a full season of that, even fewer people alive can claim that.
If you're more interested in the small details you get on playback, you may be able to glean something from reviewing what's available. If you need a huge number of examples of these you probably won't find it.

It's worth applying those criteria to more recent players too as a gut check. If I made a list of who I think are the top 30 players in the NHL today, I'm certain that the majority of players I ranked would be ones I "didn't watch" by the strictest definition.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,902
136,971
Bojangles Parking Lot
It's worth applying those criteria to more recent players too as a gut check. If I made a list of who I think are the top 30 players in the NHL today, I'm certain that the majority of players I ranked would be ones I "didn't watch" by the strictest definition.

I do think this is a point which gets glossed over in the "eye test" conversation. People seem to have a disproportionate notion of how much they've actually watched a player. In particular, playoff runs seem to really feed that perception, because they create high-profile memories out of a statistically insignificant bit of experience.
 

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,506
3,055
The Maritimes
Most people never saw Gordie Howe play.

Is he difficult to rank?
There's no exception for Gordie Howe. If you are evaluating and comparing him to other players without seeing him play, you're going to get it wrong. How much wrong, is the question.

It might very well be the case that you're going to get it less wrong for Gordie than for most other players, but you're still going to get it wrong.
 

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,506
3,055
The Maritimes
I suppose it would depend on what you intend to get from watching.

If you're wanting to rubber-stamp what you know about him from statistics and contemporary accounts by affirming that he did, in fact exist in the flesh, we have enough footage for that. Gordie Howe existed.
If you need to get a sense of how he looked, moved and skated on the ice, we've got that.
If you want to compare his most impressive highlights against those of Bobby Orr and Mario Lemieux, we've got an organization problem. You didn't always have someone cutting and saving the best stuff for commercials and montages in the 50s.
If you want to get a general sense of how involved/dominant he was, shift in shift out, the people who watched full games in his prime are all very old and dying off.
If you need a full season of that, even fewer people alive can claim that.
If you're more interested in the small details you get on playback, you may be able to glean something from reviewing what's available. If you need a huge number of examples of these you probably won't find it.

It's worth applying those criteria to more recent players too as a gut check. If I made a list of who I think are the top 30 players in the NHL today, I'm certain that the majority of players I ranked would be ones I "didn't watch" by the strictest definition.
The bottom line is, if you can't get what you need from watching, then you are not qualified to evaluate and rank him.

You're still free to evaluate him if you want, but you can't expect anybody else too have any respect for your bad and incomplete evaluation.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,201
17,552
Connecticut
There's no exception for Gordie Howe. If you are evaluating and comparing him to other players without seeing him play, you're going to get it wrong. How much wrong, is the question.

It might very well be the case that you're going to get it less wrong for Gordie than for most other players, but you're still going to get it wrong.

What do you mean by "get it wrong"?

Ranking players isn't science. It comes down to an evaluation process, but its still just opinion.

Unless you have access to God's rankings, in which case I would really love to see it.
 

Staniowski

Registered User
Jan 13, 2018
3,506
3,055
The Maritimes
What do you mean by "get it wrong"?

Ranking players isn't science. It comes down to an evaluation process, but its still just opinion.

Unless you have access to God's rankings, in which case I would really love to see it.
What I mean is, you need to see Gordie Howe play in order to do a good evaluation of him.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,070
7,120
Regina, SK
2019/20:
Top-Defensive-Forwards-Individual.jpg

Interesting graphic. Just curious, these are a couple of important sounding metrics that seem to support Bergeron being the most effective defensive forward in the NHL. Would you also say this makes a good case that Ovechkin is the least effective?
 

Trap Jesus

Registered User
Feb 13, 2012
28,686
13,456
Interesting graphic. Just curious, these are a couple of important sounding metrics that seem to support Bergeron being the most effective defensive forward in the NHL. Would you also say this makes a good case that Ovechkin is the least effective?
That's been my opinion for a while. Of course a lot depends on role as well though, centers will be more engaged with numbers like this, I think Stone is a rarity as a winger. When you're that much of an outlier like Ovechkin is though, it's a big deal. That positioning hasn't been a fluke either, he's always down there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

57special

Posting the right way since 2012.
Sep 5, 2012
47,528
19,394
MN
I don't think Keon was ever a consensus best over Henri Richard.
Yeah, he usually was. The Pocket Rocket was a very good player, but I don't know if he was the best defensive forward on his team. You could say the same thing about Keon, too, I guess. Armstrong was a really good defensive player. Pulford, too.

I would say that Keon was a better defensive player than Henri, but Keon played on a team that was known for its stingy defense. MTL had some VG defensive teams over the years, but were known for their offensive flair and scoring punch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leaf Lander

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->