Lidstrom vs. Bourque vs. Potvin

[Rhiessan71]

Nope your wrong. It changes, and gets better. Sorry you like to live in the past.

Yeah, Lidstrom better retire soon then because there's no way somebody who was a top 5 d-man in the 90's could be a top 5 d-man today

I mean the game has changed so much, no way a dinosaur like that could compete with all these superior players

 

[BraveCanadian]

Yeah, Lidstrom better retire soon then because there's no way somebody who was a top 5 d-man in the 90's could be a top 5 d-man today

I mean the game has changed so much, no way a dinosaur like that could compete with all these superior players

Isn't it funny how they forget that many players have played across more than one "era" and were great in every one of them.

Yeah, 40 year old Lidstrom is better than 30 year old Lidstrom for sure.. I mean things have changed! CHANGED!

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Yeah, Lidstrom better retire soon then because there's no way somebody who was a top 5 d-man in the 90's could be a top 5 d-man today

I mean the game has changed so much, no way a dinosaur like that could compete with all these superior players

The players who play the game, adapt with the game. Crazy I know!

 

[Rhiessan71]

The players who play the game, adapt with the game. Crazy I know!

Yeah, amazing how their god given talent still shines through eh, no matter how much the game changes.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Yeah, amazing how their god given talent still shines through eh, no matter how much the game changes.

Lidstrom, Bourque, and whoever else are special cases though, it isn't easy being a top level player for that long hence why so little are. They improve though, along with hockey during the same time period, it's not rocket science. The whole point is you guys think players could jump straight from the 80's and still dominate today (Even though it's been stated many times by others and myself, this is not how we judge players). NO! THEY COULD NOT! Not only that, they wouldn't even compete, and it's not debatable IMO. So to the point, it's arguable how much better they would have gotten with today's advantages.

Funny because all I have to do is go put on some games, and everything you guys are arguing flys out the window. Real fast.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Lidstrom, Bourque, and whoever else are special cases though, it isn't easy being a top level player for that long hence why so little are. They improve though, along with hockey during the same time period, it's not rocket science. The whole point is you guys think players could jump straight from the 80's and still dominate today (Even though it's been stated many times by others and myself, this is not how we judge players). NO! THEY COULD NOT! Not only that, they wouldn't even compete, and it's not debatable IMO. So to the point, it's arguable how much better they would have gotten with today's advantages.

Funny because all I have to do is go put on some games, and everything you guys are arguing flys out the window. Real fast.

Aren't we talking about the special cases?

No one is saying Bobby Lalonde or Ed Hospodar would still be the same players today.
But that's a far cry from Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe, Bourque, Beliveau, etc. not being the same.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lidstrom, Bourque, and whoever else are special cases though, it isn't easy being a top level player for that long hence why so little are. They improve though, along with hockey during the same time period, it's not rocket science. The whole point is you guys think players could jump straight from the 80's and still dominate today (Even though it's been stated many times by others and myself, this is not how we judge players). NO! THEY COULD NOT! Not only that, they wouldn't even compete, and it's not debatable IMO. So to the point, it's arguable how much better they would have gotten with today's advantages.

Funny because all I have to do is go put on some games, and everything you guys are arguing flys out the window. Real fast.

WTF are talking about?
It's been said by many people in many posts that that a Gretzky, Lemieux or an Orr coming into today's league would benefit from the same advanced training, coaching and medical conditions as today's players have.

It would make them even better than they were back then, that's the real scary part.

The only thing that we "living in the past fools" argue is the actual talent of said players.
Today's players are prolly faster, stronger and better conditioned but NONE of that has anything to do with talent.

Like seriously, what makes Crosby better than a guy like Boyd Devereaux, he's not faster than Boyd, he's not stronger than Boyd and he's not any better conditioned.
It's talent and instinct that separate the two.

You can't train or coach talent, you either have it or you don't and Gretzky and Lemieux, they most definitely had it, to a degree that we haven't seen before or since, no question.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Nope your wrong. It changes, and gets better. Sorry you like to live in the past.

Am not.

 

[jkrx]

WTF are talking about?
It's been said by many people in many posts that that a Gretzky, Lemieux or an Orr coming into today's league would benefit from the same advanced training, coaching and medical conditions as today's players have.

It would make them even better than they were back then, that's the real scary part.

The only thing that we "living in the past fools" argue is the actual talent of said players.
Today's players are prolly faster, stronger and better conditioned but NONE of that has anything to do with talent.

Like seriously, what makes Crosby better than a guy like Boyd Devereaux, he's not faster than Boyd, he's not stronger than Boyd and he's not any better conditioned.
It's talent and instinct that separate the two.

You can't train or coach talent, you either have it or you don't and Gretzky and Lemieux, they most definitely had it, to a degree that we haven't seen before or since, no question.

No 90% of Crosby points is because of coaching and todays structure and if we put him in the 50s, guys like Olmstead or Lindsay wouldn't kill him in seconds but he would put up 400-500 points a season.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

No 90% of Crosby points is because of coaching and todays structure and if we put him in the 50s, guys like Olmstead or Lindsay wouldn't kill him in seconds but he would put up 400-500 points a season.

Certainly no one can argue with that.

 

[Reds4Life]

Yeah, I am sure 160cm tall Ted Lindsay could really hurt Crosby and intimidate him.
The game he played is not even close to what it is today. So this "talent" some of you mention is irrelevant. The game has changed, what worked before doesn't work now etc.

And btw I am Lidsay's fan, but there is no way in hell he is better hockey player than Crosby (whom I really dislike btw).

 

[Regal]

I feel bad for Montreal fans. After he misses a full year from the game, Andrei Markov will barely be a 6th defenseman next season

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yeah, I am sure 160cm tall Ted Lindsay could really hurt Crosby and intimidate him.
The game he played is not even close to what it is today. So this "talent" some of you mention is irrelevant. The game has changed, what worked before doesn't work now etc.

And btw I am Lidsay's fan, but there is no way in hell he is better hockey player than Crosby (whom I really dislike btw).

Did somebody say Lindsay is a better hockey player than Crosby?

 

[Hardyvan123]

You are completely delusional if you don't think the game evolves and becomes more competitive every year, especially with it now being more of an international league with more athletes to choose from. Do you think Swedish hockey has grown over the last 50 years? How about the Germans, are they producing better players than they did 20 years ago? If you answer yes to either of those questions, which you should, than you have to agree the NHL is a better league than it was years ago. There is simply a greater talent pool than ever before and therefore it's logical to conclude that the players are better than ever and this will probably continue in the future.

I'm Canadian but you guys just reek of Canadian bias. You want to look back at all of these Canadian greats who really only competed against other Canadians and try to preserve their place in history as the best. According to the "experts" on this board none of the 3 greatest dmen of all time (Orr, Shore, Harvey) played within the last 35 years...oh, and by the way they were all Canadian. Funny how that works considering there weren't many European players in the league back then to compete with or compare to.

The question to me is not whether the NHL has become more competitive but how much more and how can we factor that in over the years in these comparisons everyone loves. Very difficult to figure out but the flat out denial of any change by some of you is absurd.

I agree, this should be called the Nostalgia Section cause you guys are talking about the history of hockey with your blindfolds on most of the time.

The 2nd to last paragraph is the one that I'm having the most problems with the "nostalgic section"and guys named 71.

It seems that some people only are looking at part of the picture, selective stats, and not looking at the whole picture when evaluating players and that's the most frustrating thing about this section.

I have never played a video hockey game in my life, well at least not in the last 20 years, and watch a ton of hockey and appreciate and think about it a lot, maybe life would be better to have blinders on and live in the past but that's not the point of this section to me.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The 2nd to last paragraph is the one that I'm having the most problems with the "nostalgic section"and guys named 71.

It seems that some people only are looking at part of the picture, selective stats, and not looking at the whole picture when evaluating players and that's the most frustrating thing about this section.

I have never played a video hockey game in my life, well at least not in the last 20 years, and watch a ton of hockey and appreciate and think about it a lot, maybe life would be better to have blinders on and live in the past but that's not the point of this section to me.

See, here's the thing though....you and your fellow "new is better" friends keep spouting your dribble based on the exact same observations that many of us "Talent is king" folk have seen.

At the same time "we" continue to provide statistics and examples of players who bridge the so called generation gaps to back up our opinions.
"You" on the other hand, continue to bring no evidence or examples that support your opinions because none exists.

"You" did a real nice job of trying to defuse the Lidstrom comment by either not mentioning it or calling him an "exception" or a "special case"...well who the F do you think we were talking about here? Can you seriously get any more special than Gretzky or Lemieux?

Let me repeat it to remind you in the hopes of getting some kind of rebuttal that actually holds some creditability or logic.

Yeah, Lidstrom better retire soon then because there's no way somebody who was a top 5 d-man in the 90's could be a top 5 d-man today

I mean the game has changed so much, no way a dinosaur like that could compete with all these superior players.

 

[jkrx]

The 2nd to last paragraph is the one that I'm having the most problems with the "nostalgic section"and guys named 71.

It seems that some people only are looking at part of the picture, selective stats, and not looking at the whole picture when evaluating players and that's the most frustrating thing about this section.

I have never played a video hockey game in my life, well at least not in the last 20 years, and watch a ton of hockey and appreciate and think about it a lot, maybe life would be better to have blinders on and live in the past but that's not the point of this section to me.

Got some questions for you. Explain Gordie Howe. Because according to you, what he did would be impossible. Explain how Lidström is still a top5 defenseman. Explain why Jagr were top5. Explain Mark Recchis 10 points in 13 games in this so called much harder era. Explain how old relics like Kovalev and Sundin, who aren't even close to Gretzky and Lemieux, can still be top20 players in this harsh and tough era.

Now go ahead, convince me.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I feel bad for Montreal fans. After he misses a full year from the game, Andrei Markov will barely be a 6th defenseman next season

Post like this are very enlightening, no one is arguing that the changes are that drastic but subtle changes from year to year and especially over 30 years certainly add up.

No 90% of Crosby points is because of coaching and todays structure and if we put him in the 50s, guys like Olmstead or Lindsay wouldn't kill him in seconds but he would put up 400-500 points a season.

You seem like an informed guy most of the time but I have no idea on this even as sarcasm it's not relevant if only because Crosby is the top player in the game today. If you ahd said say Tanner Glass then the sarcasm would have more affect but different folks for different strokes.

Did somebody say Lindsay is a better hockey player than Crosby?

Not yet but I wouldn't count it out, the 2-3 minute shift guy that just loves 06 hockey hasn't been on for a while. Hopefully it won't come to that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Of course hockey changes over time. I've said myself that I think the clutch and grab dead puck era was tailor-made to suit the games of power skaters like Jagr and Forsberg.

But there are numerous examples of players who excelled across "eras" (Gordie Howe, Ray Bourque, Nicklas Lidstrom, Mario Lemieux after taking 3 years off), so the people who insist that today's stars are better than yesterday's are really on thin ice.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Got some questions for you. Explain Gordie Howe. Because according to you, what he did would be impossible. Explain how Lidström is still a top5 defenseman. Explain why Jagr were top5. Explain Mark Recchis 10 points in 13 games in this so called much harder era. Explain how old relics like Kovalev and Sundin, who aren't even close to Gretzky and Lemieux, can still be top20 players in this harsh and tough era.

Now go ahead, convince me.

Maybe you could be more specific in your question>

Does Gordie Howe really need explaining?

Lidstrom's skill set is still very good as he has taken great care of his body and we can generally acknowledge that Dmen play a more mental game and can still achieve a high level of success even with slightly diminished physical skills.

Not sure where Recchi had 10 points in 13 games but any smart skilled player can have a short run like that especially when playing on the PP but there is no way he is keeping up that pace over a whole season.

I'm not sure Kovalev has ever been a top 20 player, he might have finished top 20 in points a couple of time but he is far from a complete player.

Sundin was a very under rated player through his age 36 season and we all saw how quickly he fell off at 37.

Not sure if that was what you were looking for.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Of course hockey changes over time. I've said myself that I think the clutch and grab dead puck era was tailor-made to suit the games of power skaters like Jagr and Forsberg.

But there are numerous examples of players who excelled across "eras" (Gordie Howe, Ray Bourque, Nicklas Lidstrom, Mario Lemieux after taking 3 years off), so the people who insist that today's stars are better than yesterday's are really on thin ice.

I think the biggest problem is not giving Crosby his due after his 1st 5 years by a couple of select posters and some selective stat posting as well, without context or full disclosure.

 

[Unaffiliated]

Maybe you could be more specific in your question>

Does Gordie Howe really need explaining?

Lidstrom's skill set is still very good as he has taken great care of his body and we can generally acknowledge that Dmen play a more mental game and can still achieve a high level of success even with slightly diminished physical skills.

Not sure where Recchi had 10 points in 13 games but any smart skilled player can have a short run like that especially when playing on the PP but there is no way he is keeping up that pace over a whole season.

I'm not sure Kovalev has ever been a top 20 player, he might have finished top 20 in points a couple of time but he is far from a complete player.

Sundin was a very under rated player through his age 36 season and we all saw how quickly he fell off at 37.

Not sure if that was what you were looking for.

If you admit all this, then why is it such a stretch that Jagr is simply better than Crosby has been so far?



Why is it a stretch that Lemieux is still leaps and bounds ahead of Crosby?

At age 35-36, Lemieux scored at a higher PPG and GPG than Crosby is ever to likely score in his career, after taking three years away from Hockey, with a bad back. Did hockey really change that significantly through the lockout? Oh right, it did.

More penalties sounds like something good for the greatest powerplay performer of all time.

No more clutch and grab? I guess Mario draws about 7 hooking, slashing, and holding penalties on this play:

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Please review the rules of this section. Specifically:

A reminder that this forum is not the place for "Evolution of Hockey" threads, where people who have experienced the "blinding flash of the obvious" come to the conclusion that all players today are better than any players in history, and make implications that Guy Lafleur wouldn't be able to crack an NHL roster today.

In this forum, the history of the sport is to be respected.