jaster
Take me off ignore, please.
- Jun 8, 2007
- 13,293
- 8,536
Just slowly back away from the thread, Dotter. I feel embarrassed on your behalf and it's making me uncomfortable. Please just Homer your way out of this one
Did someone really say Lidstrom didn’t have an elite shot? He had one of the best slapshots of all time…
Lidstrom had a long career with several phases.
Early in his career he was a mobile, smooth offensive defensemen whose defense was a bit underappreciated.
In 95-96 - he turned into all-star nick.
From 97-03 - he was monster nick.
I personally don't think he was ever quite the same in the post-cap era.
But he was still one of the best of the business and an absolute beast on the PP.
I think this "Lidstrom is subtle" trope came about near the end of his career, when fans were defending Norris trophies against speedy young defensemen or hard-nosed, hitting defensemen.
Lidstrom was at one point around the turn of the century perhaps the most dominant player in the sport. That's not subtle.
Don't let these 2009 arguments fool you about who 2000 Lidstrom was.
Well, you called a 7 time Norris winner elite at nothing.
Dude people were talking about Lidstrom's subtle perfection going back to 1997.
That was the prime era when guys like Darian Hatcher were routinely destroying dudes on SportsCenter. So when you said Lidstrom was the best defender, yeah, it was a little more understated to the average viewer in 1997, particularly if other guys were outscoring him. The depth of coverage and accessibility wasn't a fraction what it is today. Most of us were still dialing in on the phone line to look up scores.
Oh, I remember those days well. Local coverage from Mickey Redmond and Dave Strader (then later Ken Daniels) and the knowledgeable commentators like Darren Pang, Bryan Engblom and Ron McLean were talking up how precise and effortless Lidstrom was. It was a lot of the guys touting the "soft European" bullshit that ignored Lidstrom until he finally won a Norris.
I vaguely remember a HNIC broadcast back between 97 and 99 and McLean was talking about how great Lidstrom was and Don Cherry chimed in with something along the lines of, "Nicky's a great guy but I just wish he'd wail on guys more!"
Don Cherry chimed in with something along the lines of, "Nicky's a great guy but I just wish he'd wail on guys more!"
I always wondered how many he'd purchased in his lifetime. Gotta be 1k+ ?Loved Cherry's suits, though. Man knew how to dress.
He was subtle though. If one can be subtly dominant then Nick certainly was. If someone who had never watched hockey before were to sit and watch one Nick Lidstrom game, he wouldn't walk away saying that number 5 in red was dominant. That dominance would be apparent after watching game after game of number 5 displaying the same steady flawless excellence.Lidstrom had a long career with several phases.
Early in his career he was a mobile, smooth offensive defensemen whose defense was a bit underappreciated.
In 95-96 - he turned into all-star nick.
From 97-03 - he was monster nick.
I personally don't think he was ever quite the same in the post-cap era.
But he was still one of the best of the business and an absolute beast on the PP.
I think this "Lidstrom is subtle" trope came about near the end of his career, when fans were defending Norris trophies against speedy young defensemen or hard-nosed, hitting defensemen.
Lidstrom was at one point around the turn of the century perhaps the most dominant player in the sport. That's not subtle.
Don't let these 2009 arguments fool you about who 2000 Lidstrom was.
He was subtle though. If one can be subtly dominant then Nick certainly was. If someone who had never watched hockey before were to sit and watch one Nick Lidstrom game, he wouldn't walk away saying that number 5 in red was dominant. That dominance would be apparent after watching game after game of number 5 displaying the same steady flawless excellence.
Yes, I said flawless. Before you call bullshit, I know he was not actually flawless or perfect - just as close as we're likely to see in a hockey player.
Loved Cherry's suits, though. Man knew how to dress.
Dude people were talking about Lidstrom's subtle perfection going back to 1997.
Also post 2004 lockout Lidstrom was probably even better between 2005 and 2009 than he was 2000 to 2003. He even stated that the rest he got during the lockout left him feeling rejuvinated. We probably got a few extra years of prime Lidstrom because of it.
It comes down to semantics at a certain point but I think there is a way to dominate a game subtly. Mostly meaning Lidstrom would control the game but there might not be any highlight reel play from the game.Lidstrom DOMINATED. He's domination was plainly obvious. Subtle domination is a f***ing oxymoron outside a few S&M clubs.
And Bullshit on pre vs post-lockout Lidstrom.
Lidstrom was perhaps the best player in the NHL from 2000-2003.
He had a down year in 03-04, no question.
So that's probably where the rejuvenation concept comes from.
Man, you can say that about most defensemen in the NHL.
Nick Lidstrom wasn't any more subtle than Macinis. Not much different from Bourqe (less physical, sure).
The reason why he was more "subtle" than Pronger is because he wasn't hitting and cross-checking guys. He was more subtle late in his career because he didn't do puck rushes that wind up in youtube videos.
But most defensemen play that subtle brand of hockey. Most defense is subtle work. Angles. Stickwork.
There aren't many NHL defensemen who would catch the eyes of a non-hockey watcher - even with the rise of the small, skilled defenseman.