Lidstrom vs. Harvey for #2 Dman of all time?

[newfy]

Well Lidstrom dominated his peers more then Bourque did so theres a plus for him.

Lidstrom is by far the best offensive defenseman of his era.

In Bourques, many would make a very good case for Paul Coffey, in a timeframe when Dmen could run and gun all they wanted and the NHL was at its highest scoring.

Lidstrom is dominating his peers when more people from all over the world are in the league, not so much the case when Bourque played.

Lidstrom I think was by far the best defensive defenseman in his time as well. Can the same be said for Bourque?

I just dont see how Bourque is better, he didnt dominate offensively against his peers like Lidstrom did and I highly doubt he becomes better than Lidstrom if brought forward in time til now.

Also, the weaker team argument doesnt always work, it can just make a player stand out more. Especially as a Canadian in an 06 market

 

[Pear Juice]

Well Lidstrom dominated his peers more then Bourque did so theres a plus for him.

Lidstrom is by far the best offensive defenseman of his era.

In Bourques, many would make a very good case for Paul Coffey, in a timeframe when Dmen could run and gun all they wanted and the NHL was at its highest scoring.

Lidstrom is dominating his peers when more people from all over the world are in the league, not so much the case when Bourque played.

Lidstrom I think was by far the best defensive defenseman in his time as well. Can the same be said for Bourque?

I just dont see how Bourque is better, he didnt dominate offensively against his peers like Lidstrom did and I highly doubt he becomes better than Lidstrom if brought forward in time til now.

Also, the weaker team argument doesnt always work, it can just make a player stand out more. Especially as a Canadian in an 06 market

While I think it's being overplayed quite often, there is some merit to the argument that Bourque played with and against more great defensemen than Lidström did/does. Therefore, you shouldn't base your argument on dominance alone. I'm not saying it's easy to dominate now, but it sure as hell was damned hard in the 80s/90s.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Well Lidstrom dominated his peers more then Bourque did so theres a plus for him.

Lidstrom is by far the best offensive defenseman of his era.

In Bourques, many would make a very good case for Paul Coffey, in a timeframe when Dmen could run and gun all they wanted and the NHL was at its highest scoring.

Lidstrom is dominating his peers when more people from all over the world are in the league, not so much the case when Bourque played.

Lidstrom I think was by far the best defensive defenseman in his time as well. Can the same be said for Bourque?

I just dont see how Bourque is better, he didnt dominate offensively against his peers like Lidstrom did and I highly doubt he becomes better than Lidstrom if brought forward in time til now.

Also, the weaker team argument doesnt always work, it can just make a player stand out more. Especially as a Canadian in an 06 market

During Bourque's prime, he and Chris Chelios were runaway leaders in those "best defensive defensemen" polls.

So your argument basically boils down to the fact that Bourque wasn't as good offensively as Paul Coffey.

 

[newfy]

While I think it's being overplayed quite often, there is some merit to the argument that Bourque played with and against more great defensemen than Lidström did/does. Therefore, you shouldn't base your argument on dominance alone. I'm not saying it's easy to dominate now, but it sure as hell was damned hard in the 80s/90s.

or it just seems like that because they werent relied on defensively nearly as much and were free to play Mike Green run and gun type hockey (not saying they were all as bad defensively just a style comparison). Its no mystery why the top 5 scorers for defenseman are from the 80s. The style of play, not the defenseman did that

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

or it just seems like that because they werent relied on defensively nearly as much and were free to play Mike Green run and gun type hockey (not saying they were all as bad defensively just a style comparison). Its no mystery why the top 5 scorers for defenseman are from the 80s. The style of play, not the defenseman did that

I criticized your previous post, but I do think you're right to an extent. When people list the "best offensive defensemen of all time," it's always very heavy on 80s/early 90s early defensemen. Part of the reason they were so good offensively was because they were allowed to play that way.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Well Lidstrom dominated his peers more then Bourque did so theres a plus for him.

Lidstrom is by far the best offensive defenseman of his era.

In Bourques, many would make a very good case for Paul Coffey, in a timeframe when Dmen could run and gun all they wanted and the NHL was at its highest scoring.

Lidstrom is dominating his peers when more people from all over the world are in the league, not so much the case when Bourque played.

Lidstrom I think was by far the best defensive defenseman in his time as well. Can the same be said for Bourque?

I just dont see how Bourque is better, he didnt dominate offensively against his peers like Lidstrom did and I highly doubt he becomes better than Lidstrom if brought forward in time til now.

Also, the weaker team argument doesnt always work, it can just make a player stand out more. Especially as a Canadian in an 06 market

In his first 5 years in the NHL Lidstrom was outscored by Bourque. In his 6th season Lidstrom outscored Bourque by 7 points but played 18 more games. Two years later, when Bourque was 38, he and the 28 year-old Lidstrom each had 57 points in 81 games.

So playing in the same years, not only did Lidstrom not dominate Bourque offensively, it was closer to the opposite.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Well Lidstrom dominated his peers more then Bourque did so theres a plus for him.

Lidstrom is by far the best offensive defenseman of his era.

In Bourques, many would make a very good case for Paul Coffey, in a timeframe when Dmen could run and gun all they wanted and the NHL was at its highest scoring.

Lidstrom is dominating his peers when more people from all over the world are in the league, not so much the case when Bourque played.

Lidstrom I think was by far the best defensive defenseman in his time as well. Can the same be said for Bourque?

I just dont see how Bourque is better, he didnt dominate offensively against his peers like Lidstrom did and I highly doubt he becomes better than Lidstrom if brought forward in time til now.

Also, the weaker team argument doesnt always work, it can just make a player stand out more. Especially as a Canadian in an 06 market

That Sergei Gonchar has a legitimate claim to take that title away shows how weak an era it was for offensive defencemen.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I criticized your previous post, but I do think you're right to an extent. When people list the "best offensive defensemen of all time," it's always very heavy on 80s/early 90s early defensemen. Part of the reason they were so good offensively was because they were allowed to play that way.

Part of it was they were allowed to play that way and part of it was the Bobby Orr effect. The same kind of effect happened with goalies after Patrick Roy had his success in the late 80's. Just like before Orr came along, that d-men that rushed the puck or took chances were highly frowned upon. The same held true for goalies that didn't stand up. I know this first hand as I was playing goal in Junior in the mid 80's and I know what the school of thought was at the time along with the derogatory notions and flat out bias that non-traditional goalies went through.
D-men were not only being allowed to play that way, they were being groomed and encouraged to play that way at an early age.
That simply doesn't happen anymore and this might sound silly to some but at one time, young players were actually taught and encouraged to play to win.
Now, they are are taught not to lose.

 

[Big Phil]

Well Lidstrom dominated his peers more then Bourque did so theres a plus for him.

Lidstrom is by far the best offensive defenseman of his era.

In Bourques, many would make a very good case for Paul Coffey, in a timeframe when Dmen could run and gun all they wanted and the NHL was at its highest scoring.

Lidstrom is dominating his peers when more people from all over the world are in the league, not so much the case when Bourque played.

Lidstrom I think was by far the best defensive defenseman in his time as well. Can the same be said for Bourque?

I just dont see how Bourque is better, he didnt dominate offensively against his peers like Lidstrom did and I highly doubt he becomes better than Lidstrom if brought forward in time til now.

Also, the weaker team argument doesnt always work, it can just make a player stand out more. Especially as a Canadian in an 06 market

Let's boil it down to this: Hart Trophy voting finishes:

Bourque - 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10,
Lidstrom - 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

No doubt Bourque wins that hands down. His 2nd place finishes were runner up to Gretzky and Messier respectively and we all know the controversy about the Messier Hart in 1990.

Lidstrom wins the Norris Trophies and the Cups. However, Bourque still kills him in all-star nods, Norris Trophy voting and he was at least as good of a playoff performer as Lidstrom.

What do our eyes tell us? After having watched both careers to me there is no way a person should ever pick Lidstrom ahead of Bourque. Just the style of play and the ability Bourque had to control the pace of the game is what sets him apart. The physical nature of Bourque adds to that as well.

Not to mention Bourque was almost always "the man" in Boston. Lidstrom was never that guy until Yzerman and Fedorov left and even then it would be interesting to judge who was more important in recent years on the Wings.

Another thing, let's use an incredibly deep decade of defensemen in the 1970s. Every single Norris winner had an incredible year. Does Bourque win a Norris in the 1970s? Does Lidstrom? For starters no one wins against Orr from 1970-1975. That leaves 1976-'79. Lidstrom's best season doesn't equal Potvin's three best nor does it equal Robinson in 1977. Bourque in my honest opinion had 1987 and 1990 at the minumum of two years that he would have been at least neck and neck with some of Potvin's Norrises.

And we've stressed time and time again how Lidstrom did happen to hit his stride at a time when Chelios, Bourque, Stevens, MacInnis, Leetch, Coffey and co. were slowing down. Pronger was hurt a lot, and there was Blake and Niedermayer and the likes of Gonchar. 2011 is the weakest Norris year I have ever seen personally as well which cannot be ignored.

Lastly, while Lidstrom is an all-time great using your eyes and measuring stats and how they were revered in the league and which player you would choose should you be a GM who would you pick? To me it always has been Bourque.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Let's boil it down to this: Hart Trophy voting finishes:

Bourque - 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10,
Lidstrom - 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

No doubt Bourque wins that hands down. His 2nd place finishes were runner up to Gretzky and Messier respectively and we all know the controversy about the Messier Hart in 1990.

Lidstrom wins the Norris Trophies and the Cups. However, Bourque still kills him in all-star nods, Norris Trophy voting and he was at least as good of a playoff performer as Lidstrom.

What do our eyes tell us? After having watched both careers to me there is no way a person should ever pick Lidstrom ahead of Bourque. Just the style of play and the ability Bourque had to control the pace of the game is what sets him apart. The physical nature of Bourque adds to that as well.

Not to mention Bourque was almost always "the man" in Boston. Lidstrom was never that guy until Yzerman and Fedorov left and even then it would be interesting to judge who was more important in recent years on the Wings.

Another thing, let's use an incredibly deep decade of defensemen in the 1970s. Every single Norris winner had an incredible year. Does Bourque win a Norris in the 1970s? Does Lidstrom? For starters no one wins against Orr from 1970-1975. That leaves 1976-'79. Lidstrom's best season doesn't equal Potvin's three best nor does it equal Robinson in 1977. Bourque in my honest opinion had 1987 and 1990 at the minumum of two years that he would have been at least neck and neck with some of Potvin's Norrises.

And we've stressed time and time again how Lidstrom did happen to hit his stride at a time when Chelios, Bourque, Stevens, MacInnis, Leetch, Coffey and co. were slowing down. Pronger was hurt a lot, and there was Blake and Niedermayer and the likes of Gonchar. 2011 is the weakest Norris year I have ever seen personally as well which cannot be ignored.

Lastly, while Lidstrom is an all-time great using your eyes and measuring stats and how they were revered in the league and which player you would choose should you be a GM who would you pick? To me it always has been Bourque.

Hart voting is fine, if we assume that the criteria that voters use from year to year stays the same and that they always make the right choices. Was Bobby Clarke really deserving of all 3 of his Harts over Orr?

Also I venture to say that both Bourque and Lidstrom could win Norris trophies in the 70's depending what age, and team, we are going to plunk them in hypothetically.

The "weak" Norris of 11 might be an aberration or just something that's harder to judge due to the high quality of play and lack of dominance that comes with that. It definitely wasn't Lidstroms best season by a longshot.

Context matters and anyone who plays in any type of league here knows that. you can be a great player in the league you play in Toronto but maybe you and your team might not look as "great" or dominant in an Ontario-Quebec tourney for example.

And yes the league has changed to that high of an extent IMO.

i think this last point gets lost on tons of people in this section.

add that in the 70's there was a wider gap betwween the elagues best teams and doormats than there has been in Lidstrom's time.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Let's boil it down to this: Hart Trophy voting finishes:

Bourque - 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10,
Lidstrom - 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

No doubt Bourque wins that hands down. His 2nd place finishes were runner up to Gretzky and Messier respectively and we all know the controversy about the Messier Hart in 1990.

Lidstrom wins the Norris Trophies and the Cups. However, Bourque still kills him in all-star nods, Norris Trophy voting and he was at least as good of a playoff performer as Lidstrom.

What do our eyes tell us? After having watched both careers to me there is no way a person should ever pick Lidstrom ahead of Bourque. Just the style of play and the ability Bourque had to control the pace of the game is what sets him apart. The physical nature of Bourque adds to that as well.

Not to mention Bourque was almost always "the man" in Boston. Lidstrom was never that guy until Yzerman and Fedorov left and even then it would be interesting to judge who was more important in recent years on the Wings.

Another thing, let's use an incredibly deep decade of defensemen in the 1970s. Every single Norris winner had an incredible year. Does Bourque win a Norris in the 1970s? Does Lidstrom? For starters no one wins against Orr from 1970-1975. That leaves 1976-'79. Lidstrom's best season doesn't equal Potvin's three best nor does it equal Robinson in 1977. Bourque in my honest opinion had 1987 and 1990 at the minumum of two years that he would have been at least neck and neck with some of Potvin's Norrises.

And we've stressed time and time again how Lidstrom did happen to hit his stride at a time when Chelios, Bourque, Stevens, MacInnis, Leetch, Coffey and co. were slowing down. Pronger was hurt a lot, and there was Blake and Niedermayer and the likes of Gonchar. 2011 is the weakest Norris year I have ever seen personally as well which cannot be ignored.

Lastly, while Lidstrom is an all-time great using your eyes and measuring stats and how they were revered in the league and which player you would choose should you be a GM who would you pick? To me it always has been Bourque.

No.. please god no, not another Hart argument against Lidstrom..

No defensemen other Pronger in a fluke year (where he would not have won if luck didn't come his way) have been a finalist for the Hart since 1991 if I recall correctly.. and that includes almost half of Bourques career so please.. no.. please.. just drop it.

The voters just don't consider defensemen as much as they should lately.

Also, as someone who puts a ton of weight on winning like you do Phil.. Bourque never won as "the man". He needed Sakic and Forsberg and Roy. In your own famous words, he just couldn't get it done. He always crumbled in the finals under the pressure. (Like Joseph in the conference finals )

Lidstrom has however captained a cup winner (and been to two finals) without Yzerman and Fedorov. And he didn't have Roy in net, either.

I still go back and forth as to who I feel would be better, I just think both of those arguments you have made have been discussed to death and are really don't say a lot in favour of Bourque over Lidstrom.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I admittedly did not get the opportunity to watch Bourque too often, but I did watch Chelios a lot - and I honestly do not think prime Chelios was ever on the same level as Lidstrom defensively. His mean and snarly play was a plus, IMO, but Lidstrom was just a blackhole for pucks for so long - plays evaporated around him and he just sucked them up. It was eery almost, but you never had an ounce of worry in your mind when play found it's way to Lidstrom's side in his own end.

It's ridiculous that a nickname of "perfect" can actually describe a player - but w/ Lidstrom you could describe his play that way with a straight face. And it was always with so little fan fare... just routine, without breaking a sweat.

Lidstrom is the reason why every single Detroit defenseman since Konstantinov "sucks defensively" in so many fans' minds - they have just been so spoiled by Lidstrom literally never making a mistake. Go to any Wings' forum and fans are merciless against defensemen.

I think so many Wings' fans truly believe Lidstrom as the greatest of all-time because it is hard to imagine anyone being better than "perfect"... though Orr was.

 

[Claypool]

Let's boil it down to this: Hart Trophy voting finishes:

Bourque - 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10,
Lidstrom - 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

No doubt Bourque wins that hands down.

So now we're using Hart nominations to distinguish greatness? Hasek actually won two Hart trophies, but when you read the Hasek vs. Roy thread, people don't seem to think that trophy doesn't hold much merit.

 

[redbull]

Part of it was they were allowed to play that way and part of it was the Bobby Orr effect. The same kind of effect happened with goalies after Patrick Roy had his success in the late 80's. Just like before Orr came along, that d-men that rushed the puck or took chances were highly frowned upon. The same held true for goalies that didn't stand up. I know this first hand as I was playing goal in Junior in the mid 80's and I know what the school of thought was at the time along with the derogatory notions and flat out bias that non-traditional goalies went through.
D-men were not only being allowed to play that way, they were being groomed and encouraged to play that way at an early age.
That simply doesn't happen anymore and this might sound silly to some but at one time, young players were actually taught and encouraged to play to win.
Now, they are are taught not to lose.

sad, if true. But how do you mean that exactly? Are you saying that players are taught more to avoid mistakes rather than to make plays or that the spirit of winning/losing isn't instilled in young hockey players any more, it's more about FUN and skill development than pure winning/losing?

 

[BraveCanadian]

sad, if true. But how do you mean that exactly? Are you saying that players are taught more to avoid mistakes rather than to make plays or that the spirit of winning/losing isn't instilled in young hockey players any more, it's more about FUN and skill development than pure winning/losing?

Creativity and risk taking are trained out of players way too early these days with the objective of "winning".

I remember reading a quote from Bobby Orr a while ago where he went to some minor hockey game and was lamenting the fact that even at that level it was all systems and strategy and not a game for the kids. He said that one of the reasons we don't see another Orr or Gretzky etc. is because the kids aren't allowed or encouraged to play like that.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

sad, if true. But how do you mean that exactly? Are you saying that players are taught more to avoid mistakes rather than to make plays or that the spirit of winning/losing isn't instilled in young hockey players any more, it's more about FUN and skill development than pure winning/losing?

Play has gotten awfully conservative, which I can appreciate - but I do miss the risk-taking in hockey.

I honestly think Lidstrom had almost as much of a part of how defensemen played as Orr did (but in the opposite direction, of course).

 

[Rhiessan71]

Also I venture to say that both Bourque and Lidstrom could win Norris trophies in the 70's depending what age, and team, we are going to plunk them in hypothetically.

Sorry, Lidstrom doesn't win a single Norris in the 70's imo no matter what team and what age you want to slot him into.
Lidstrom would of gotten killed just like Salming almost was and Lidstrom is no where even close to being as tough as Salming.
You can not say that this player or that player couldn't play today due to the speed of the game and then ignore the fact that certain players today are just simply not tough enough to play back then.

The "weak" Norris of 11 might be an aberration or just something that's harder to judge due to the high quality of play and lack of dominance that comes with that. It definitely wasn't Lidstroms best season by a longshot.

Don't sugar coat it, this years Norris was a gimme, almost a joke. Name a single year where Bourque ever had a gimme year...there wasn't one, not even close.

add that in the 70's there was a wider gap betwween the leagues best teams and doormats than there has been in Lidstrom's time.

That is a bunch of crap, ESPECIALLY in Lidstrom's case, pre-salary cap. For about 8-10 years before the Cap, there was a HUGE gap between the have's and the have not's and Detroit was one of, if not the biggest have's around.
It's a piss poor poor argument.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Creativity and risk taking are trained out of players way too early these days with the objective of "winning".

I remember reading a quote from Bobby Orr a while ago where he went to some minor hockey game and was lamenting the fact that even at that level it was all systems and strategy and not a game for the kids. He said that one of the reasons we don't see another Orr or Gretzky etc. is because the kids aren't allowed or encouraged to play like that.

Here's one glaring example of that - has a single NHL player ever lifted the puck and swung it around with his stick? 13 year-olds can do that nowadays and yet it has never been even tried in an NHL game? Orr nor Gretzky never would have hesitated to at least give it a try during a game. Gretzky probably would have made it into an every-day thing, league-wide, eventually.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Creativity and risk taking are trained out of players way too early these days with the objective of "winning".

I remember reading a quote from Bobby Orr a while ago where he went to some minor hockey game and was lamenting the fact that even at that level it was all systems and strategy and not a game for the kids. He said that one of the reasons we don't see another Orr or Gretzky etc. is because the kids aren't allowed or encouraged to play like that.

Exactly.
When I was a kid playing rep and Junior hockey, is was about how many goals we could score to win the game.
Scoring goals was the priority, now it's about preventing them.
Kids are more worried about making mistakes and getting benched than scoring goals and that's wrong to me.
Kids are supposed to try things and make mistakes. Seeing a 10 year old actually benched because he tried to score a goal makes me sick.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Here's one glaring example of that - has a single NHL player ever lifted the puck and swung it around with his stick? 13 year-olds can do that nowadays and yet it has never been even tried in an NHL game? Orr nor Gretzky never would have hesitated to at least give it a try during a game. Gretzky probably would have made it into an every-day thing, league-wide, eventually.

Sid did it in Junior and got lambasted for it.

Not sure you will see someone try it anytime soon.
Maybe a player like PK Subban would try it, hard to say though.

 

[matnor]

Here's one glaring example of that - has a single NHL player ever lifted the puck and swung it around with his stick? 13 year-olds can do that nowadays and yet it has never been even tried in an NHL game? Orr nor Gretzky never would have hesitated to at least give it a try during a game. Gretzky probably would have made it into an every-day thing, league-wide, eventually.

Didn't Kent Nilsson do it? Maybe it was in an international game but I have a distinct memory of Kenta taking the puck on his stick behind the net and simply putting it in the goal in a similar fashion as Granlund did recently.

 

[Hanji]

Lidstrom would of gotten killed just like Salming almost was and Lidstrom is no where even close to being as tough as Salming.
You can not say that this player or that player couldn't play today due to the speed of the game and then ignore the fact that certain players today are just simply not tough enough to play back then.

Please explain what made the game tougher in the 1970s.
More fighting? Yes
Dirtier? Ok
But it was a different type of toughness considering players were smaller, the game was slower and there was more time and space to move.
Contrast that with today's game which resembles human pinball with 220+ players; not to mention players don't have as much respect for each other as they used to.
Considering Lidstrom can contain 220+ lb. forwards in front of the net, he'd have no problem with players from the 1970's.

Anyhow, Lidstrom has only missed 19 games in 19 years. Any defenseman with that type of durability is tough as nails, regardless of style of game played.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Systems and Strategies

Creativity and risk taking are trained out of players way too early these days with the objective of "winning".

I remember reading a quote from Bobby Orr a while ago where he went to some minor hockey game and was lamenting the fact that even at that level it was all systems and strategy and not a game for the kids. He said that one of the reasons we don't see another Orr or Gretzky etc. is because the kids aren't allowed or encouraged to play like that.

Fair amount of truth but two factors have to be considered.

Coaches teach defensive systems at an early age but they do so in a very superficial manner. The youngsters are shown repeatedly what to do and where to be on the ice to play responsible defense but they are rarely shown proper body and stick position so they can be in optimum offensive position when puck possession changes and the transition game may be launched.Net result is that potential offensive opportunities are wasted.

The various no contact rules and hitting from behind rules. Net result is that some coaches teach their players how to play with the puck in a fashion to draw penalties and get a powerplay advantage. Youngsters playing the puck with their back to the play do not learn proper offensive positioning or how to see or read the various situations that may arise on the ice.

 

[danincanada]

Please explain what made the game tougher in the 1970s.
More fighting? Yes
Dirtier? Ok
But it was a different type of toughness considering players were smaller, the game was slower and there was more time and space to move.
Contrast that with today's game which resembles human pinball with 220+ players; not to mention players don't have as much respect for each other as they used to.
Considering Lidstrom can contain 220+ lb. forwards in front of the net, he'd have no problem with players from the 1970's.

Anyhow, Lidstrom has only missed 19 games in 19 years. Any defenseman with that type of durability is tough as nails, regardless of style of game played.

Not only that but Lidstrom didn't exactly pack up and retire when Tinordi grabbed him in a scrum back in '96 and started throwing punches - the one and only "fight" Lidstrom was in during his career. This whole scrum was due to that POS Dale Hunter going after Yzerman. Too bad Lidstrom didn't square off against someone a little smaller and less fierce.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNYRhR86dp0

If Lidstrom couldn't survive playing through the 70's then what about Gretzky? Should we use this argument against him as well?

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Creativity and risk taking are not being trained out of players these days. The players in today's NHL are more creative than they've ever been. Now not only is hockey sense not able to be taught, but it's been trained out of everyone. Everyone in the NHL today is a robot, Iafrate like with tons of tools but no toolbox.

The same NHL that features players such as Sidney Crosby, Joe Thornton, Evgeni Malkin, the Sedin's, Nicklas Backstrom, Pavel Datsyuk, Mikko Koivu, Claude Giroux, Patrick Kane, John Tavares, Matt Duchene, Jeff Skinner, Jason Spezza, Ryan Getzlaf, Ales Hemsky, David Krejci, Patrice Bergeron, Henrik Zetterberg, etc. etc. and the list actually goes on and on and on.

Now imagine what the NHL would be like if the creativity wasn't trained out of all these players, how amazing would that be?