If Orr started playing in todays NHL

[Boxscore]

I don't think anyone is going to dispute that.

I would hope not. But we keep going back to this "defensive defenseman" thing. Maybe I am missing something (and I'm being serious here). Please define your understanding of the term "defensive defenseman" for me... and then name players who were better at defending than Orr and just tell me why they were better... specific attributes than made them superior at preventing goals than Orr. Maybe I will understand it a little better then. But, for example, I don't think an argument like, "Scott Stevens was a meaner open-ice hitter" is an ample argument for him being better defensively than Orr. And, forget about coach's polls, because all polls like that have bias, and the ulimate award for defensemen is the Norris (and Orr has more than anyone). I am looking for specific, tangible skills that made other players better defensively than Orr.

 

[CarlWinslow]

He would be a scrub. Maybe 45 points a year.

Do I actually believe that? NO. It's just what this board has taught me over the last few days.

 

[85highlander]

You can't be in two places at once, and sure he was among the fastest skaters ever for getting back but that doesn't change the fact that rushing defensemen take risks and get caught now and again. Even Jesus.

While I agree, no player can be in two places at once, Orr was better at attempting it than anyone in history, at least while his knees still had some juice.

There is a segment in the this video that shows how quickly Orr could transition -- not just from defense to offense, but here from off to def to off while finishing down in the slot. It starts at about 4minutes and 15secs in.

 

[chcl]

Trying to predict how Orr would do in todays NHL is like looking at a 14 year old hockey player and projecting that kids NHL career. Even if the kid dominates it is still more or less a guess. Not to mention that lots of posters are acting like that particular 14 year old hockey players mom.

No other player can be better than anything Bobby Orr did. Soon there will be a consensus that Orr would in fact be taller than Chara if his knees had held up, as he was probably still growing.

 

[JackSlater]

I agree it would really depend on the team and coahc but I think 1150120 points would be out of his reach as the role of dmen has changed to much and the talent gap is too narrow even for the great Orr to get that many today.

That being said he could get 90 plus points in a perfect storm season but no Dman has scored more than 80 in the 21st century which says more about the role of Dmen and the game today than a lack of talent IMO.

Mike Green was on pace for roughly 88 points two years ago. I think that Orr getting 90 plus points in a perfect situation is definitely underrating Orr, unless Green is on the Coffey level offensively.

IMO, if we saw a year with Orr down to 'only' 90 points, Lidstrom would have a good chance of beating him for the Norris based on defensive play. Orr was unlike Coffey in that he was 'good' defensively, maybe even 'great' at times, but he was never Liddtrom's 'perfect' in that department.

If Orr goes down to 90 points, unless he was injured, I think it's safe to say that he has focused more on defence than he did in the 70s. I can't see Lidstrom winning the Norris over this Orr, who I am going to guess would be basically equivalent to Lidstrom defensively due to a more conservative style. I also think that you're underrating Orr's defence somewhat. From everything I've seen and heard from that era Orr was among the best defensive players of the early 70s. Considering puck control I am willing to say that Orr was probably the most effective defensive player of his time.

Don't lump me into someone who thinks Lidstrom is better than Orr... I just think Lidstrom would have a fair shake at a few Norrises in Orr's 'off' years.

The Orr who would be playing today would certainly have fewer "off" years just due to medical technology. Once Orr hit his prime barring injury I don't see Lidstrom having a remote chance at a Norris, even in his absolute best seasons.

I think Lidstrom would beat Orr when Orr won the Norris with 31 pts in 1968... And that is not the only year.

I think Harvey, Kelly, Shore, Bourque, Potvin and a number of other defensemen who had high peaks could also beat Orr for a few Norrises. Orr is the best, but I do not pretend to think all 8 of his Norrises were beyond reproach.

The last six were. I understand that you aren't saying that Lidstrom is better than Orr or anything though. Lidstrom could definitely beat a really young Orr or an injured Orr for the Norris.

 

[#66]

Didn't go through the entire thread but there are a lot of questions that come up?

Like who is now the first defenseman to bring plays up ice and get SO involved offensively? Coffey? Park?

Does a roaming unit of 5 become the new in thing in hockey instead of defenseman leading the rush?

In todays game you would have to think of Orr as a player like a Crosby or Forsberg in terms of elite level of play, frame, style and kind of playing like a roaming center. Plus that same quality of play in all three zones. Brian Leetch also comes to mind in terms or lateral mobility and stick handling.

It would be interesting to see Orr against players that would play more of a postion than chasing him around the ice. Defenses are so layered now that you really don't see end to end rushes anymore.

 

[Boxscore]

Defenses are so layered now that you really don't see end to end rushes anymore.

If Byfuglien could go end to end, a prime Orr would do it easily.

 

[BraveCanadian]

If Byfuglien could go end to end, a prime Orr would do it easily.

The point is that during Orr's day and during the 80's with Coffey and Bourque etc. it was fairly common.

Now it is the exception.

 

[CarlWinslow]

The point is that during Orr's day and during the 80's with Coffey and Bourque etc. it was fairly common.

Now it is the exception.

Show me a defender today who is as gifted at rushing the puck as Orr or Coffey. It being common has a lot to do with their skill.

Also, it happens more than you think. I watch Andrej Sekera and Tyler Myers skate the puck from end to end. Yeah, they don't finish but they aren't Bobby Orr.

 

[DRWCountryClub]

I was just going to say, seems like most defensemen get their points from the PP, or setting up in the offensive zone and benefitting from a good forward cycle game. Puck to the point, shoot, traffic in front, and score.

From the highlights I've seen of Orr, it seems like he was so dominant with the puck and could skate by everyone. This wouldn't happen today, at least not nearly as regularly as he used to do it, so it might have an impact on him scoring something ridiculous like 120 points.

Would he lead defensemen in points most years? Probably, yeah, but anything approaching 100 is too much in my mind.

Regularly 80-90 in this era with great defense would put a player behind Orr in terms of all time best, simply because he will never not be #1 to most people, yet I think in this era that's what he would do, which would be just as great as what he did back in the 70's.

Agree with Rabbins though, about Lidstrom and Orr.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I think Lidstrom would beat Orr when Orr won the Norris with 31 pts in 1968... And that is not the only year.

You mean when Orr was only 19 and only played 46 games?

By the time Lidstrom even made the NHL he was 22 and by that time Orr was already well into his 4th season scoring 120 points.


Either way, no one should be talking about Norris' that Orr maybe shouldn't of won because that doesn't even remotely compare to how many he WOULD of won if he had of been able to continue playing.
10-14 Norris' is not a stretch here what so ever.

 

[canucks4ever]

If Orr was able to outscore players like mikita, hull and esposito. Why does everyone have a hard time believing he can't outscore anyone today, it just puzzles me.

 

[chcl]

If Orr was able to outscore players like mikita, hull and esposito. Why does everyone have a hard time believing he can't outscore anyone today, it just puzzles me.

Because his whole game was based on playing in a way that would not work today. He would be a defensive liability to such a degree that he would make Green look like Lidstrom if he did not change his play.

Now, he would probably be able to adapt but who knows how well. It is just a guessing game and you really cannot base it on any facts.

 

[DRWCountryClub]

If Orr was able to outscore players like mikita, hull and esposito. Why does everyone have a hard time believing he can't outscore anyone today, it just puzzles me.

The games just different.

I'm not saying he's not great, just that dmen play differently.

 

[Boxscore]

If Orr was able to outscore players like mikita, hull and esposito. Why does everyone have a hard time believing he can't outscore anyone today, it just puzzles me.

Because some hockey fans are strange, honestly. In baseball, most historians say that if a drunken, overweight Babe Ruth could hit more HRs than entire teams while swinging that club, he would have no problem dominating the game today. Basketball fans say the same about Michael Jordan. Even in the music genre, you never hear music enthusiasts claiming the hottest new band is as good or better than the Beatles. When will there ever be another Michelangelo? Umm, probably never.

Hell, there's a reason The Godfather and Citizen Kane are still revered as the best motion pictures of all-time by film buffs. Bach and Mozart are still considered the best classical composers of all-time. My point being, greatness is greatness. And every 1,000 years, 100 years or 50 years or whatever, we are blessed with the chance to witness unique talent that will never be matched again. Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky are those talents when it comes to all-time NHL forwards and defensemen. Plain and simple.

Only in hockey, for some odd reason, do modern fans thrive on discrediting what the all-time greats in past years accomplished. And to be honest, I don't understand it. To say ridiculous things like Orr wouldn't be able to go end-to-end today, or that Orr wouldn't win as many Norris trophies today because the overall talent in the NHL is better is just like saying Mozart would "just be a real good composer today" because music schools have improved. It's utterly ridiculous, ignorant and disrespectful.

Bobby Orr dominated - repeat, DOMINATED - his era. He was a defenseman outscoring all-time greats and Hall of Famers like Lafluer, Perreault, Mikita, Esposito, and Clarke. I think it's safe to say he would be a safe bet to beat out Henrik Sedin for the Art Ross and Duncan Keith for the Norris. Some of the statements discrediting Robert Orr in this thread are unbelievable.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

^ seriously though, i'm pretty sure the people who doubt orr's ability to dominate lidstrom are the same people who think linkin park are better than the beatles because they have computers to help them make music.

 

[JackSlater]

Because his whole game was based on playing in a way that would not work today. He would be a defensive liability to such a degree that he would make Green look like Lidstrom if he did not change his play.

Obviously Orr would adapt somewhat, but to say that his whole game would not work today is not true.

It seems that a lot of people seem to think that all of Orr's points came from end to end rushes where he just outskated the rest of the team and scored. Orr had incredible hockey sense and immense physical talents other than his skating ability. He was able to dominate even later in his career when his skating did not match the lofty standards he had set a few years earlier. Even on the powerplay where skating is less important Orr was ridiculously dominant. End to end rushes may be far less frequent today but talent and hockey sense are still the deciding factors in how great a player is, and Orr would tower over anyone playing today in those key areas.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The games just different.

I'm not saying he's not great, just that dmen play differently.

When Orr came into the NHL the game was different too. Dmen played differently then, too.

He changed it.

 

[Dangler99*]

How Does Orr Only have 1 Lindsay Award.He was the best player in league more than once but only got recognized for it one time.

 

[BubbaBoot]

Show me a defender today who is as gifted at rushing the puck as Orr or Coffey. It being common has a lot to do with their skill.

Also, it happens more than you think. I watch Andrej Sekera and Tyler Myers skate the puck from end to end. Yeah, they don't finish but they aren't Bobby Orr.

Subban looks like another who likes to go coast to coast....but none of them could finish like Orr.

 

[BubbaBoot]

How Does Orr Only have 1 Lindsay Award.He was the best player in league more than once but only got recognized for it one time.

I don't understand that award. The Lindsay is for "outstanding player" and the Hart is for the "most valuable player". We're talking semantics here, what's the difference? (Not that I'm much of a big fan for subjective awards anyways).

 

[finchster]

How Does Orr Only have 1 Lindsay Award.He was the best player in league more than once but only got recognized for it one time.

Lindsay is a second tier award, not many people put any stock into it

 

[Dreakmur]

If Byfuglien could go end to end, a prime Orr would do it easily.

That was 4 on 4, not 5 on 5.

 

[mrhockey193195]

I think people need to stop making generalizations and blanket statements like "player x was better defensively than player y," and instead should actually explain what they mean.

When it comes to defending the opposition attack, I think Orr, Lidstrom, Bourque, etc. are amongst the greatest of all time. I personally would take Orr over just about anybody in this regard, but I am not at all offended if someone would rather have Lidstrom or Potvin or Bourque. Valid arguments can be made for all these guys. They all blocked shots. They all had impeccable stickwork and stick positioning. Some were more physical than others, but they all could get the job done in front of their net.

That being said, Orr was far and away the greatest contributor to his team's defense in NHL history. Why? Because he controlled the puck ALL THE TIME. The best defense is keeping the puck away from the other team, and nobody did that like Orr. So in that regard, Orr was easily a "greater defensive player" than Lidstrom and company.

Also, this is the same reason why I have problems with calling Gretzky a poor defensive player. Yes, he was not the best at defending the other team when they had the puck, and he wasn't the best backchecker. But more often than not, it was a moot point because Gretzky had the puck on his stick and he didn't need to backcheck.


EDIT: To address the actual OP's question, my belief is pretty similar to the general sentiment of this thread. Orr probably wouldn't be able to skate laps around people and play keep-away anymore, just because the speed of the average player in the NHL is so high. The game is different, things like that cannot really happen anymore. Orr would still absolutely dominate though, just like any great would if you placed them in another era. If I were to put a number on it? I would say Orr would still pot home between 30 and 40 goals every year, and 70-80 assists every year.

 

[Stray Wasp]

Obviously Orr would adapt somewhat, but to say that his whole game would not work today is not true.

It seems that a lot of people seem to think that all of Orr's points came from end to end rushes where he just outskated the rest of the team and scored. Orr had incredible hockey sense and immense physical talents other than his skating ability. He was able to dominate even later in his career when his skating did not match the lofty standards he had set a few years earlier. Even on the powerplay where skating is less important Orr was ridiculously dominant. End to end rushes may be far less frequent today but talent and hockey sense are still the deciding factors in how great a player is, and Orr would tower over anyone playing today in those key areas.

Excellent post.

Perversely enough, far too frequently modern players are placed on pedestals for highlight reel moments, whilst isolated pieces of footage are seized upon to diminish the past. In both cases, a player's complete game within its overall practical context gets overlooked. As if one would judge a film based on a single line of dialogue.