Lidstrom - Stevens vs. Bourque - Pronger

[pluppe]

Let's leave defensemen out of the discussion for a moment.

Hockey players have various skills and preference. Yet when playing the game, a hockey player cannot take a "It's not my job." or a " I don't do that." approach to circumstances.

A forward who happens to be the last player back has to make an effort at playing defense. Stepping aside and waiting for someone else to do the job is simply not acceptable.

Bringing this full circle to playing defense. Sometimes the position demands a physical approach, A player cannot simply pass the buck to his partner or hope for a change of pairings. It is simply his moment to step-up and fill the role. Can a defenseman refuse to block shots? Sure but this choice is part of his legacy. Can a defenseman insist on playing dirty and out of control? Sure but it is part of his legacy. Just like the lack of physicality is part of his legacy.

Sure he may be accepted by his teammates and fans for all his other contributions but it is realistic to acknowledge his complete legacy.

I think this is a good point but would like to broaden the discussion. while I agree that physicality in some situations is the best approach it is also the wrong approach in others. Since no player can make the right choice all the time we can assume that even the player who varies his choices will fail now and again. maybe it evens out, maybe it don´t, but I think it is worth mentioning.

I would also like to challenge the view that Lidström wasn´t physical. If you mean nasty body-checks I agree. That is a positive thing to do sometimes to put fear in your opponent but I don´t know if it ever is necessary in stopping a goal. Lidström could steer forwards away with his body if necessary as good as most. sure he might sometimes go for a poke-check when he should have tackled but the opposite misstake is true for others (since nobody has perfect decision-making) and you could argue there are larger risks involved in a missed tackle.

 

[pluppe]

Sorry, I guess I worded it poorly. I meant Bourque was a step up from Lidstrom and that's it. Lidstrom is certainly better than Stevens or Progner.

having re-read it I understand what you ment.

sorry.

then I think we are pretty close to agreeing.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Stevens was at his best in New Jersey, other than perhaps the one season in St. Louis.

He put up much better offensive numbers while in Washington, but he didn't have close to the same impact he had later in his career. When he played in Washington, he would often run out of position to try and make a big hit, he was also a serious hot head, and it wasn't all that difficult to get him off his game with some aggitation.

Not that it's a knock, but Stevens picked up a bunch of his points in Washington, on the PP, when he was stationed in front of the net, he was never the PP QB lik eth eother 3 defenseman mentioned.

Agreed. Stevens is a guy who was at his best when his numbers were actually the lowest. Well, except for the one season in 93-94, I guess.

 

[Fugu]

Let's leave defensemen out of the discussion for a moment.

Hockey players have various skills and preference. Yet when playing the game, a hockey player cannot take a "It's not my job." or a " I don't do that." approach to circumstances.

A forward who happens to be the last player back has to make an effort at playing defense. Stepping aside and waiting for someone else to do the job is simply not acceptable.

Bringing this full circle to playing defense. Sometimes the position demands a physical approach, A player cannot simply pass the buck to his partner or hope for a change of pairings. It is simply his moment to step-up and fill the role. Can a defenseman refuse to block shots? Sure but this choice is part of his legacy. Can a defenseman insist on playing dirty and out of control? Sure but it is part of his legacy. Just like the lack of physicality is part of his legacy.

Sure he may be accepted by his teammates and fans for all his other contributions but it is realistic to acknowledge his complete legacy.

The bold part is where I disagree. Again, you seem to be stating your preference for a style of play. These two guys elaborate further so I won't repeat because I'd basically say what they said:

Strongly agree -- Physical play can be a plus for defensemen, but should not be a stand alone attribute with much weight at all.

If player A stops 8 out of 10 offensive plays by hitting and playing physically and...

Player B stops 9 out 10 plays with poke checks and playing positionally

I am going to pick player B 100% of the time. The fact he probably spends a lot less time in the penalty box is quite honestly more than enough reward to compensate for the intimidation advantage of Player A.

I think this is a good point but would like to broaden the discussion. while I agree that physicality in some situations is the best approach it is also the wrong approach in others. Since no player can make the right choice all the time we can assume that even the player who varies his choices will fail now and again. maybe it evens out, maybe it don´t, but I think it is worth mentioning.

I would also like to challenge the view that Lidström wasn´t physical. If you mean nasty body-checks I agree. That is a positive thing to do sometimes to put fear in your opponent but I don´t know if it ever is necessary in stopping a goal. Lidström could steer forwards away with his body if necessary as good as most. sure he might sometimes go for a poke-check when he should have tackled but the opposite misstake is true for others (since nobody has perfect decision-making) and you could argue there are larger risks involved in a missed tackle.

Just to expand on that....

The thing with Lidstrom is that he was rarely out of position or beaten that it really may have been best to poke check or steer or take away a lane. Point being that the physical play may be the last option if you don't do the other things firstly. He is so smart in how/where he positions himself, and especially during his glory years rarely made a mistake. His teammates and coach call him Mr. Perfect for a reason. Thus one might say that Lidstrom preempted any need for what some are saying is the required play. I'm saying that the requirement is maybe in the eyes of the beholder and not required at all if you're good at anticipating.

Physical play really is the last option because you're either so close to the opposing player that this is your only option, which is why you can get burned by choosing to play that way.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Selective

The bold part is where I disagree. Again, you seem to be stating your preference for a style of play. These two guys elaborate further so I won't repeat because I'd basically say what they said:





Just to expand on that....

The thing with Lidstrom is that he was rarely out of position or beaten that it really may have been best to poke check or steer or take away a lane. Point being that the physical play may be the last option if you don't do the other things firstly. He is so smart in how/where he positions himself, and especially during his glory years rarely made a mistake. His teammates and coach call him Mr. Perfect for a reason. Thus one might say that Lidstrom preempted any need for what some are saying is the required play. I'm saying that the requirement is maybe in the eyes of the beholder and not required at all if you're good at anticipating.

Physical play really is the last option because you're either so close to the opposing player that this is your only option, which is why you can get burned by choosing to play that way.

Selective choice of on ice possibilities.

How do you handle a Dustin Byfuglien planted in front of your goalie and you are the only one there? Even a player with the worst anticipation knows that he will be there. Asking politely is not an option - you have to physically move him or live with the consequences.

Being called Mr. Perfect by his teammates and coach is one thing, having them stand-up when it matters is another.

Many seasons ago Claude Lemieux laid a dirty and vicious hit from behind on a Red Wing grinder Kris Draper, a physical player. The Red Wings virtually to a man stood-up and exacted a price from Claude Lemieux every chance they had. In the 2009 playoffs against Chicago Patrick Sharp speared Mr. Perfect requiring emergency surgery. To this day no one on the Red Wings has stood - up to Patrick Sharp.

 

[Athtar]

Selective choice of on ice possibilities.

How do you handle a Dustin Byfuglien planted in front of your goalie and you are the only one there? Even a player with the worst anticipation knows that he will be there. Asking politely is not an option - you have to physically move him or live with the consequences.

It's not like Lidstrom is this weak, little girl that couldn't do anything remotely physical. He is as good as any player at tying up opponents in front of the net and using his body to steer players away from the net.

There is more than one way to deal with players crashing the net. Just because you can't physically remove players from the crease doesn't mean you can't play defense. And given the success the Wings have had with Lidstrom (and the rest of the team) playing his style of defense, I have a hard time arguing otherwise.

Many seasons ago Claude Lemieux laid a dirty and vicious hit from behind on a Red Wing grinder Kris Draper, a physical player. The Red Wings virtually to a man stood-up and exacted a price from Claude Lemieux every chance they had. In the 2009 playoffs against Chicago Patrick Sharp speared Mr. Perfect requiring emergency surgery. To this day no one on the Red Wings has stood - up to Patrick Sharp.

You are kidding right?

You are comparing an accidental spear (which no one even knew, not even Sharp, happened) to a vicious, dirty hit from behind?

 

[Fugu]

Selective choice of on ice possibilities.

How do you handle a Dustin Byfuglien planted in front of your goalie and you are the only one there? Even a player with the worst anticipation knows that he will be there. Asking politely is not an option - you have to physically move him or live with the consequences.

Being called Mr. Perfect by his teammates and coach is one thing, having them stand-up when it matters is another.

Many seasons ago Claude Lemieux laid a dirty and vicious hit from behind on a Red Wing grinder Kris Draper, a physical player. The Red Wings virtually to a man stood-up and exacted a price from Claude Lemieux every chance they had. In the 2009 playoffs against Chicago Patrick Sharp speared Mr. Perfect requiring emergency surgery. To this day no one on the Red Wings has stood - up to Patrick Sharp.

All beside the point really. Buffy (cause I can't spell his name) isn't the first player to play that style against the Wings. What you're arguing is the 'what if' scenario because it's harder to refute. What I'm arguing is what Lidstrom has achieved. Like I mentioned earlier, and here's Holland on the topic, but Lidstrom was always on the ice for the best that every other team in the NHL could throw at the Wings. The one constant. If his style were deemed a liability, the team would shield him - and itself - from players who exposed Lidstrom's weaknesses. I'm saying that there's nothing to expose, and certainly not anything that would be rectified by him being more physical.


This was before the Wings won in 2008 and almost repeated in 2009:

A quote from Detroit GM Ken Holland pretty much said it all why Lidstrom goes down as the top European ever to play in the NHL: “For the last 10 years we’re near the top of the league in points, he plays almost 30 minutes a game, always against the other team’s best players, he’s always one of the highest-scoring defensemen, most years we’re near the top of the league in power play, most years we’re near the top of the league in penalty-killing and most years we’re near the top of the league in goals against. He plays every critical situation. We won three [edit: four] Stanley Cups and five Presidents’ Trophies. We’ve been to the final four times in the last 12 seasons [edit: final six times in the last 14 seasons] and he has been the one constant.”

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articl...rom-No-1-Euro-No-2-blueliner-of-all-time.html

 

[Canadiens1958]

Limitations

All beside the point really. Buffy (cause I can't spell his name) isn't the first player to play that style against the Wings. What you're arguing is the 'what if' scenario because it's harder to refute. What I'm arguing is what Lidstrom has achieved. Like I mentioned earlier, and here's Holland on the topic, but Lidstrom was always on the ice for the best that every other team in the NHL could throw at the Wings. The one constant. If his style were deemed a liability, the team would shield him - and itself - from players who exposed Lidstrom's weaknesses. I'm saying that there's nothing to expose, and certainly not anything that would be rectified by him being more physical.


This was before the Wings won in 2008 and almost repeated in 2009:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articl...rom-No-1-Euro-No-2-blueliner-of-all-time.html

Every player has limitations. Perfect players do not exist. Teams, coaches, management live with this reality making the necessary accommodations.

Lidstrom's achievements are not in dispute. Neither are those of Larry Robinson, Ray Bourque, Denis Potvin who brought disciplined physicality to the defence.

"What if" is fundamental to coaching. Contingency planning. Recognizing possible causes of losing and having a pro-active alternative ready. Certain advantages to having the pro-active alternative included in the same package. Gordie Howe at forward being the prime example.

The ultimate test with any style is imitation by upcoming and future generations of players at a position. Inevitably all the generational talents of hockey have been imitated - Howe,M.Richard, Orr, Beliveau, Hull, Gretzky, Lemieux, Plante, Roy, Potvin, Bourque, Robinson to name just a few. Nicklas Lidstrom has not produced a flow of imitators like Orr and the others did. Nicklas Lidstrom is a very unique talent. No one is disputing this fact but there is still a distance between unique and best or revolutionary.

 

[jkrx]

Every player has limitations. Perfect players do not exist. Teams, coaches, management live with this reality making the necessary accommodations.

Lidstrom's achievements are not in dispute. Neither are those of Larry Robinson, Ray Bourque, Denis Potvin who brought disciplined physicality to the defence.

"What if" is fundamental to coaching. Contingency planning. Recognizing possible causes of losing and having a pro-active alternative ready. Certain advantages to having the pro-active alternative included in the same package. Gordie Howe at forward being the prime example.

The ultimate test with any style is imitation by upcoming and future generations of players at a position. Inevitably all the generational talents of hockey have been imitated - Howe,M.Richard, Orr, Beliveau, Hull, Gretzky, Lemieux, Plante, Roy, Potvin, Bourque, Robinson to name just a few. Nicklas Lidstrom has not produced a flow of imitators like Orr and the others did. Nicklas Lidstrom is a very unique talent. No one is disputing this fact but there is still a distance between unique and best or revolutionary.

Neither have Hasek and he is concidered the best goalie of all-time. Their styles is not as easy to imitate as the butterfly or physical defenseman play. Thats why you rarely see someone imitate it.