NHL.com Best Dmen of the Expansion Era

[JAS 39 Gripen]

1 Orr
2 Potvin
3 Bourque
4 Robinson
5 Park
6 Lindstrom
7 Chelios
8 Pronger
9 Chara
10. Coffey

"The good ol' Canadian version"! That "Lindstrom" don't belong though, can't you find an Ontariaaah boi for his spot?

 

[Cubs2024WSChamps]

Tracy Meyers prolly had Toews third after Gretzky and Mario but the NHL told her to change it.

Still, Duncan Keith not in the top 15 is quite an eye roller. There a strong case he's 1,2 or 3 as the best defenseman of the cap era and no offense, Tracy, he was a better defenseman then Phil Housely

 

[Bryce Newman]

Super 16: Orr, Karlsson among best defensemen of expansion era

1. Orr
2. Lidstrom
3. Bourque
4. Robinson
5. Coffey
6. Potvin
7. Chelios
8. Leetch
9. Niedermayer
10. Park
11. MacInnis
12. Stevens
13. Pronger
14. Chara
15. Murphy
16. Karlsson

I'd re-arrange some of the names here, but it's actually not a bad list at all.

My order:

1. Orr
2. Bourque
3. Potvin
4. Leetch
5. Coffey
6. Robinson
7. Park
8. Chelios
9. Lidstrom
10. MacInnis
11. Pronger
12. Stevens
13. Murphy
14. Chara
15. Niedermayer
16. Karlsson

 

[PaulD]

"The good ol' Canadian version"! That "Lindstrom" don't belong though, can't you find an Ontariaaah boi for his spot?

Ha !!
Scott Stevens

 

[Riley 88]

I'd re-arrange some of the names here, but it's actually not a bad list at all.

My order:

1. Orr
2. Bourque
3. Potvin
4. Leetch
5. Coffey
6. Robinson
7. Park
8. Chelios
9. Lidstrom
10. MacInnis
11. Pronger
12. Stevens
13. Murphy
14. Chara
15. Niedermayer
16. Karlsson

Top 3 are correct...........Leetch was not that high. Not as good as many below like Park, Robinson, Chelios, Lidstrom.....I have it like this.....

Orr
Bourque
Potvin,
Lidstrom
Park
Chelios
Robinson
Stevens
Neidermayer
Coffey
Chara
Pronger
Leetch
Hedman
Murphy.....I prefer two way DMen.........D Men who hit are more valuable then those who are not physical.

 

[Bryce Newman]

Top 3 are correct...........Leetch was not that high. Not as good as many below like Park, Robinson, Chelios, Lidstrom.....I have it like this.....

Orr
Bourque
Potvin,
Lidstrom
Park
Chelios
Robinson
Stevens
Neidermayer
Coffey
Chara
Pronger
Leetch
Hedman
Murphy.....I prefer two way DMen.........D Men who hit are more valuable then those who are not physical.

Leetch is considered the greatest Ranger of all-time so he would be above Park. Neidermayer should be near the bottom. Lidstrom is always way too high on these lists. Stevens? I guess if you like physical Defensemen, but I prefer the skilled guys who were game breakers. Much more fun to watch than the head hunters. Stevens was an extremely solid Dman but not as skilled as some of the other guys here so I'd have him lower. You can be a good 2-way Defenseman without being overly physical, by the way. The bigger Dmen tend to get overrated.

 

[ChiefWiggum]

Just me, but I would have Pronger in the top 5.

 

[TomppaKoo]

In my personal opinion. No player from beer league era where the only players in the league were Canadian. Beer leaguers. Should top any list of any category in any all-time listing.

 

[Confused Turnip]

It's not about "preferred timing". Doesn't the fact that he won all his hardware after age 30 tell you something? Players don't get better past 30, they start to decline. The point is when he had better competition and was in his physical prime, he didn't win anything. The 7 Norris wins against weaker competition (and when he was older) mislead people into thinking he was better than he actually was. He was still great but not a Top 5 Defenseman all-time, in my opinion.

The early 20s peak is much more of a thing for people who rely on those things that go early for their edge (extreme reflexes, extreme speed, etc) and not so much guys who can play on their power, pure skill and/or IQ. Most physical attributes don't start going until well into your 30s, and some stuff like strength is still improving as you cross 30. For a guy who isn't a high octane winger type getting better into your 30s is totally possible, especially if you had big gaps or blind spots in your early 20s that offer you a lot of room to improve to offset aging.

Either way making the assumption that the guy must have been getting worse while the league was also getting worse at a faster pace is a hell of a thing to just have as an unproven and unlikely assumption. When's the last time the league got lower skilled consistently for a decade without significant expansion happening?

 

[Riley 88]

Leetch is considered the greatest Ranger of all-time so he would be above Park. Neidermayer should be near the bottom. Lidstrom is always way too high on these lists. Stevens? I guess if you like physical Defensemen, but I prefer the skilled guys who were game breakers. Much more fun to watch than the head hunters. Stevens was an extremely solid Dman but not as skilled as some of the other guys here so I'd have him lower. You can be a good 2-way Defenseman without being overly physical, by the way. The bigger Dmen tend to get overrated.

You obviously did not see Brad Park. Had it not been for Orr....Park would have at least five Norris trophies. Trust me.....On his best day, Brian Leetch was not as good as Brad Park. Park was a two way dominant Dman who was also a great checker and positional player. If you think Stevens was only an extremely "solid" defencmen, then i detect a Ranger fan. Scott Stevens was a dominant force who could wreck games. Three Stanley cups makes you a bit more then Solid. I am betting you are 40 or under....

I was always told Jean Ratelle and Rod Gilbert were the two greatest Rangers ever......Leetch was a fine offensive dynamo....but he did not hit anyone, did not defend below the circles well, did not stop on coming puc handlers....Those are part of the job description...Coffey also. Had these two played defense....They would not have had time to be skating up ice....I just think defensemen should be that first.

 

[Bryce Newman]

You obviously did not see Brad Park. Had it not been for Orr....Park would have at least five Norris trophies. Trust me.....On his best day, Brian Leetch was not as good as Brad Park. Park was a two way dominant Dman who was also a great checker and positional player. If you think Stevens was only an extremely "solid" defencmen, then i detect a Ranger fan. Scott Stevens was a dominant force who could wreck games. Three Stanley cups makes you a bit more then Solid. I am betting you are 40 or under....

I was always told Jean Ratelle and Rod Gilbert were the two greatest Rangers ever......Leetch was a fine offensive dynamo....but he did not hit anyone, did not defend below the circles well, did not stop on coming puc handlers....Those are part of the job description...Coffey also. Had these two played defense....They would not have had time to be skating up ice....I just think defensemen should be that first.

Leetch was very, very good defensively. Look up quotes from his peers from when he was playing. Park, as good as he was, never played at Leetch circa 1994 levels. Coffey wasn't as well rounded as Leetch but his offense is unmatched and that alone puts him in the Top 10. Stevens was a punishing Defenseman, but you don't pass on guys like Coffey or Leetch for him. No disrespect to Stevens but guys like Coffey and Leetch are a lot more rare of a player than he was.

 

[Confused Turnip]

Leetch was a fine offensive dynamo....but he did not hit anyone, did not defend below the circles well, did not stop on coming puc handlers....Those are part of the job description...Coffey also. Had these two played defense....They would not have had time to be skating up ice....I just think defensemen should be that first.

Good luck with this, for some reason there's a huge group of people in this thread that think Coffey and Leetch were two way juggernauts with all time great level defensive skills to match their offensive skills. By the skill level bar being set for a list like this, neither of those guys could defend a lick. It doesn't mean they were or weren't bad defenders by the NHL bar, it's two different standards.

 

[El Diego]

All these terrible lists are worth it for the "Hasek is a back up" meme

 

[danincanada]

Great shut down Defenseman, but yeah Lidstrom was never my cup of tea to be honest. Hard guy to make a highlight reel of. He benefited greatly by playing in a weak era for Defensemen (racked up Norris Trophies with no competition) and never had to really extend himself much because he was always on stacked Red Wing teams. If you're a fan of longevity though, Lidstrom would be a favorite of yours. He certainly had that going for him. But I'm more of a "peak" guy myself and Lidstrom really didn't win anything until he was after 30 years old.

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to rave about Leetch so much and then claim Lidstrom only dominated and won 7 Norris’ due to weak competition when Leetch was only 2 years older than Lidstrom. The reality is Lidstrom completely out lasted Leetch career wise and that’s why he’s unanimously ranked higher than Leetch all-time.

Over the course of Lidstrom’s career his team won 2/3 of their games. Maybe not highlight material but he was extremely effective when it came to helping his team win over his 20 year career.

 

[MessierII]

Hasek as the 8th best goalie since expansion is 100% the worst take I've ever seen.

Agreed Hasek is pretty handily the greatest goalie of all time.

 

[b in vancouver]

I'd re-arrange some of the names here, but it's actually not a bad list at all.

My order:

1. Orr
2. Bourque
3. Potvin
4. Leetch
5. Coffey
6. Robinson
7. Park
8. Chelios
9. Lidstrom
10. MacInnis
11. Pronger
12. Stevens
13. Murphy
14. Chara
15. Niedermayer
16. Karlsson

That's actually really close to mine.
Orr - Bourque - Potvin should be universal #1, #2, #3.
I'm sure most everyone will discount Leetch at #4 but he's one of my all-time favourite defencemen so I like seeing him there, even I don't quite agree.
Love that you have Lidstrom around where he should be considered. I find it ridiculous that people put him up there with Bourque and Potvin.
I'd probably shuffle 8-14 as I think MacInnis and Chelios get over-rated and would take Pronger, Chara and Murphy over them but that's splitting hairs.
That's the best list I've seen.
Borge Salming, Markov and Weber probably get my HM's but I'm sure I'm missing others.

 

[Confused Turnip]

Agreed Hasek is pretty handily the greatest goalie of all time.

It was amazing how many saves he made from the bench and locker room during the Olympic and Cup runs in 98. I guess that's why it's the great goalie season of all time though. All these guys today are trying to get it done from starts like suckers.

 

[Herby]

I think it all depends on how much you value career vs. peak.

I also think some of the modern guys (specifically Karlsson & Doughty) are being underrated.

Larry Murphy at his peak was just not as good as Erik Karlsson and Drew Doughty at their peaks. But he had a much longer level of higher play than those guys. For me, unless it was a total one year thing I am always going to take the peak of a guys career when analyzing or doing a list like this.

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

I’d have Potvin over Coffey.

Niedermayer is also far too high for my liking. I’d move him down quite a few spots.

 

[slapKing]

Some people are trying way too hard to keep Lidstrom out of the top 3.

 

[Boxscore]

And THIS on the centers ballot:

TRACEY MYERS
1. Wayne Gretzky; 2. Mario Lemieux; 3. Mark Messier; 4. Joe Sakic; 5. Steve Yzerman; 6. Sidney Crosby; 7. Ron Francis; 8. Joe Thornton; 9. Marcel Dionne; 10. Mike Modano; 11. Bryan Trottier; 12. Adam Oates; 13. Mats Sundin; 14. Phil Esposito; 15. Doug Gilmour; 16. Dale Hawerchuk

Esposito 14th? Lmao.

 

[danincanada]

That's actually really close to mine.
Orr - Bourque - Potvin should be universal #1, #2, #3.
I'm sure most everyone will discount Leetch at #4 but he's one of my all-time favourite defencemen so I like seeing him there, even I don't quite agree.
Love that you have Lidstrom around where he should be considered. I find it ridiculous that people put him up there with Bourque and Potvin.
I'd probably shuffle 8-14 as I think MacInnis and Chelios get over-rated and would take Pronger, Chara and Murphy over them but that's splitting hairs.
That's the best list I've seen.
Borge Salming, Markov and Weber probably get my HM's but I'm sure I'm missing others.

You love Lidstrom is so low but what is the reasoning for it? All metrics should have him top 2 or 3 here, such as all-star nominations, offensive stats, playoff career, and longevity.

Lidstrom literally was involved in winning more games, both regular season and playoffs, than any other player in league history. It wasn’t all about just being in a great situation either. Having the dominant defenseman of his era for his full 20 year career when he rarely took penalties, rarely missed games, rarely made mistakes, and always kept a level head is something us fans can’t fully appreciate. Some people weren’t as entertained and I get that but the effectiveness of his play shouldn’t be questioned and he’s either 2 or 3 with Bourque.

 

[Boxscore]

You love Lidstrom is so low but what is the reasoning for it? All metrics should have him top 2 or 3 here, such as all-star nominations, offensive stats, playoff career, and longevity.

I can see it. For me, it's always come down to personal preference. I don't want to sound like I'm taking anything away from the great Nicklas Lidstrom, but I guess it will come off as such. But I think for Lidstrom, he had the great fortune of joining the Wings as they were about to embark on their big years... all while the competition was beginning to flounder. When the Wings were at their absolute best, their biggest challenge were the Avs, Stars and Devils--while all good clubs, nothing compared to some of the powerhouses guys like Potvin and Bourque had to face.

Lidstrom, to his credit, also had the benefit of remaining healthy and playing great consistently. However, just me personally, I generally put more emphasis on "at their best" when it comes to picking my all-time greats. And, "at their best", Bourque and Potvin are a step ahead of Lidstrom in my book, due to their elite (not just awesome) offense, as well as their physicality, bodychecking... and in the case of Potvin... downright intimidation.

Technically, Lidstrom was exceptional defensively. He also supplied very good offense, but he wasn't physical at all. Granted, some people can care less about physicality, but I do, especially when it comes to ranking the all-time great defensemen.

The way I've always looked it at, if Lidstrom was a 10 defensively, he was an 8 offensively, and a 5 in the physicality/intimidation category. Men like Bourque and Potvin were 8.5 or 9's defensively, 9's offensively, and Bourque was a 7.5 and Potvin 9 in the physical/intimidation category. That's why I would take both of them over Lidstrom if building my team from scratch.

As for accolades, Potvin captained the Isles dynasty. And Bourque had the misfortune of playing for the Bruins when they didn't want to spend or consistently try to ice a contending club. I know this cliche "what if" is old hat, but if you swapped Lidstrom and Bourque, you can't tell me with a straight face that Bourque doesn't get more Norris wins and his Cups with the Wings. Meanwhile, Lidstrom would have been lucky to get a Cup, and in turn is likely looking at a couple less Norris trophies due to not playing on an elite team. I know it's a hypothetical, but I can't help but think that.

 

[danincanada]

Top 3 are correct...........Leetch was not that high. Not as good as many below like Park, Robinson, Chelios, Lidstrom.....I have it like this.....

Orr
Bourque
Potvin,
Lidstrom
Park
Chelios
Robinson
Stevens
Neidermayer
Coffey
Chara
Pronger
Leetch
Hedman
Murphy.....I prefer two way DMen.........D Men who hit are more valuable then those who are not physical.

I don’t agree with your last statement. Lidstrom was incredibly valuable because he could provide elite defending without being physical, which allowed him to take so few penalties and avoid injury. He was literally like Gretzky in how few times guys got a piece of him with a hit because he was so smart and he used those same smarts to read the play.

Here’s his teams record with him in the lineup:

1,564 GP, 937 Wins, 422 Losses, 127 Ties, 78 OTL for a 0.66464 Pts %.

Here’s their record without him:

44 GP, 15 Wins, 20 Losses, 3 Ties, 6 OTL for a 0.44138 Pts %.

Those numbers should jump out at you for a few reasons. Lidstrom was living proof that a non-physical, brainy and skilled defenseman can be more valuable than any physical comparable from his era at a minimum.

 

[Boxscore]

Those numbers should jump out at you for a few reasons. Lidstrom was living proof that a non-physical, brainy and skilled defenseman can be more valuable than any physical comparable from his era at least.

I don't necessarily see that. I mean, forget about physical play vs. technical defense in isolation for a moment--if Lidstrom is out of the line-up, your team is missing an elite, 25 minute, all purpose defense anchor--so, sure, there is going to be a huge disadvantage. But let's say, in his place, you put in Scott Stevens, Chris Pronger, or Chris Chelios in Lidstrom's absence--now you have that elite, top pair D who can log those minutes. Even though those players are true "physical beasts", there's a great chance the Wings have similar success. I don't think it has to do with style of play, when you're talking about a massive void.

However, where style of play does matter, at least for me, are by calculating the various ways certain players can impact a game and offer you chances to win. Guys like Potvin, Pronger, Stevens, Chelios, etc. literally scared some players to death. They also injured players, even knocking some out of series'. Not only do those type of players make the opposition uncomfortable, they also give their own team a jolt of confidence and swagger.

In game 1 of a 7 game series, Lidstrom is just trying to play mistake-free hockey and win the game. The other guys are trying to do that while also thinking how they can knock a couple impact players out of the lineup. In the case of Bourque, his offense was tremendous. Offensively, he was as dangerous as anyone not wearing 99 or 66 when he played. All about personal preference though, granted. But some fans are bullish and insist Lidstrom is 1 or 2 all-time with no discussion--I've never agreed with that stance.