you simply are a hater. thats as simple as I can put it. you pretty much diminish everything the man did, and claim that he didnt deserve his Hart votes as if "everyone else" had it wrong but you. It is pretty silly.
I must be the one person who feels strongly either way about Langway since I hate him apparently. Thinking that he is overrated historically and that he did not deserve the accolades he received (and disagreeing with your opinion) do not constitute hating the guy.
I wanted to get a solid gauge as to how good the man was, and in an era for ridiculous offense, he stood out to most everyone. He maybe isnt a top 10 dman, but he clearly is much better then you give him credit for.
Zauper gave facts as a way to back up the importance of Langway and how good he was, you simply bring heresay and your own personal opinions to the table. I welcome debate to this discussion, but your views really offer nothing but onesidedness.
He showed how Langway's team improved, but he did not say as much about how good Langway himself actually was. He did post some good stuff though. I apologise for offering onesidedness, but as one person that is the most I can really offer.
I dont know if there is a clear cut way to judge different eras and who should be top 10, but I damn well know that Rod Langway was one of the best dmen during his playing career, and is very much underrated by many who still use offensive numbers as a way to judge a defenseman.
Why would you not use offensive numbers to judge defencemen? That is a big part of the game. I have not based my valuation of Langway solely on offensive numbers by any stretch. Langway was a great defensive defenceman, arguably the best in the world for a few years, but he was putrid offensively. Bourque, Howe, Potvin and Coffey brought more to the table, even in the years that Langway won his Norris trophies (in the case of Howe and Potvin they brought more in the respective years that they were healthy). Just considering offence and defence, even if Langway was let's say a 10 out of 10, Bourque, Howe and Potvin were 9s. Offensively they were maybe 8s or 7s and Langway was basically a 3. Even Coffey, who would be a 10 offensively in this admittedly highly flawed system, is probably at least a 5 defensively. Langway just was not as good as those guys, and that's only considering peak years.
It's not solely due to Langway, but a lot of it can be attributed to him. It's also worth mentioning that Montreal, who traded Langway to the Caps allowed what, 65 more goals the same year? So we're talking about a 100+ goal swing. And the largest component of it is Langway.
I agree with that for the most part.
Can you find it? Jarvis and Engbloom are probably partially responsible as well, but that doesn't exactly explain the swing, particularly when you consider that Langway got the most minutes, etc -- and perhaps most importantly, that the defense and goaltending, as a whole, was still abysmal. You pretty much having them playing in front of two journeymen goaltenders (Riggin and Jensen, both of whom didn't stay in the league for more than what, 3-4 years and had no success outside of when they played with Langway), and a terrible defense -- Langway, Engbloom, Blomqvist, Theberge, Houston, Holt and a rookie Stevens. Rookie Stevens was decent, but would frequently go out of position making a big hit, and the Blomqvist/Theberge/Houston/Holt were bad. Blomqvist was a nobody. Holt was a fighter. Theberge was a minor leaguer.
blogofmike quoted the post I was thinking of. There were more posts somewhere that tried to figure out just how large Langway's impact was I think. Obviously it's impossible to figure out just how large his individual impact was, but most numbers seem to indicate that it was not as large as was perceived at the time.
On top of that, the Caps former #1 Dman went the other way in the trade (Green), so Langway would have taken on his minutes, and it seems he may have played additional minutes. The biggest improvement came on the PK, where the Caps allowed 29 fewer goals per season over the following two seasons compared to the prior two. (92 versus 150), where Langway saw the most minutes. You don't think that's a substantial improvement?
It is quite an improvement. We seem to disagree on how much of that improvement should be attributed to Langway, or perhaps more so how valuable that contribution was compared to the other elite defencemen he was competing against.
I don't think most people would consider Langway one of the top 10 dmen in the history of the league. I wouldn't. But that doesn't seem to be your argument -- your argument seems to merely be that he's overrated.
To be honest I don't think he is all that overrated today because he seems to have faded from memory more than other players. I do believe that he was overrated at the time though.
The voters would disagree with you (as would I, from what I remember from seeing him, and the changes within the Caps organization)
While your opinion is great, it doesn't seem to reflect anything that I can find, and you can't seem to express anything other than "I disagree", which is unhelpful. Did you see him play?
Yes I saw him play. To me Langway was almost the antithesis of Lidstrom, at least in terms of defensive style. He was a big strong guy who was physical and agressive. He caught your eye pretty easily while playing defence, which I believe helped him in terms of popular opinion at the time. In a historical context I would probably put him a little behind Serge Savard among defencemen. As far as some actual evidence, here are some GVT numbers just from Langway's Norris seasons. GVT is not perfect, but I find that it is very rarely far off the mark when it comes to assessing players.
Langway 83: 8.8 in 80 GP with OGVT=1.6 and DGVT=7.2
Langway 84: 11.9 in 80 GPwith OGVT=1.4 and DGVT=10.5
Now assuming that the people who calculated the GVT are not haters, those numbers reflect what actually happened on the ice with respect to goals for and against. Here are the numbers for Langway's contemporaries in those years.
Potvin 83: 16.8 in 69 GP with OGVT=9 and DGVT=7.8
Potvin 84: 20.5 in 78 GP with OGVT=14 and DGVT=6.5
Bourque 83: 23.2 in 65 GP with OGVT=12.5 and DGVT=10.7
Bourque 84: 28.8 in 78 GP with OGVT=17.1 and DGVT=11.7
Howe 83: 19.1 in 76 GP with OGVT=10 and DGVT=9.1
Howe 84: 14 in 71 GP with OGVT=8.5 and DGVT=5.5
Coffey 83: 22.5 in 80 GP with OGVT=18 and DGVT=4.5
Coffey 84: 29.2 in 80GP with OGVT=25.2 and DGVT=4
Now all of those guys played on stronger teams than Langway (only marginally so in some cases) which would slightly boost their numbers in this area, but the gaps are still really huge. If Langway was really the best defencemen in those years, I cannot imagine why he was getting doubled in GVT in some cases by contemporaries. I am sure that since the trophy was first awarded it has never happened, other than in Langway's two Norris years. That to me implies that he may have been overrated at the time.