Rank Niklas Kronwall in the Wings' All Time Defensemen

Mlotek

Registered User
Feb 28, 2017
921
346
South of US Border
Also keep in mind Detroit was a cup contender every season Chelios was on the team.

Detroit's window was pretty much shut after the 2nd San Jose series.

After Rafalski retired, the Wings were no longer a legit cup contender. Just treading water to make the playoffs in desperate attempt to keep the streak alive.
 

MBH

Players Play
Jul 20, 2019
13,497
7,298
SE Michigan
redwingsnow.com
Well that is quite a stretch. Don't pull a muscle!

My simple point was that Cheli was never a liability as claimed.

Sure he slowed down drastically in his later years, but he was still smarter and better defensively than Kronner.

Man, Chelios absolutely was a liability from the lockout and beyond.

here are his stats in Detroit
6-31-34 +48
0-3-3 +4 (only 24 games)
6-33-39 +40
----
So the first two years... one injury-filled season. Two seasons with 34 to 39 points, and +40 and _48.
Now comes the decline.

2-17-19 +4
2-19-21 +12
4-7-11 +6
0-11-11 +11
3-9-12 +11
0-0-0 +1

So he had two very good years.
two years where he didn't play much.
Give years with 12 to 21 points.

I think Kronwall beats that.
6-45-51 +2
8-41-49 +0
9-35-44 -4
11=26=37 +5
7-28-35 +25
15=21-36 -2

Kronwall doesn't get the accolades. But even if you want to give Chelios full credit for 01-02, he still only had those 2 years with 30 or more points.
Kronwall did it 6 times. The lockout prevented a seventh.
Injuries prevented another one.
Even at the end, he had back to back 27-point seasons.

Chelios came here at the end of a long, storied career. And after 2 excellent seasons, he just kind of hung around.

2005-06 Chelios was nowhere near the Chelios in 02 - let alone the chelios from the 80s and 90s.
 

Mlotek

Registered User
Feb 28, 2017
921
346
South of US Border
Well that is quite a stretch. Don't pull a muscle!

My simple point was that Cheli was never a liability as claimed.

Sure he slowed down drastically in his later years, but he was still smarter and better defensively than Kronner.

Chelios wasn't great in his final few seasons. His foot speed just wasn't there. Wasn't he a healthy scratch for the 08 finals? Being scratched for Brett Lebda isn't exactly a glowing endorsement.

Using the ridiculous +/- stat, since you brought it up.

Chelios' rank among Wings D for +/-

2009 - 5th
2008 - 4th
2007 - 5th
2006 - 2nd
2004 - 4th
2003 - 4th
2002 - 1st
2001 - 4th
2000 - 1st
 

kook10

Registered User
Jun 27, 2011
4,657
2,787
Using the ridiculous +/- stat, since you brought it up.

Chelios' rank among Wings D for +/-

2009 - 5th
2008 - 4th
2007 - 5th
2006 - 2nd
2004 - 4th
2003 - 4th
2002 - 1st
2001 - 4th
2000 - 1st

Great. How does that compare to Nik Jr? (Hint:favorably)
 

Lazlo Hollyfeld

The jersey ad still sucks
Mar 4, 2004
28,161
26,456
I was a Chris Chelios fan from his rookie year. I've met him several times and he's a great guy.
But Chelios was nowhere near the player he'd been earlier in his career by the time he got to Detroit,
His 01-02 season was the pinnacle in Detroit and he went downhill substantially after that.


Chris Chelios beyond 02 was nothing special. Beyond the lockout, he was just an old man hanging on to a well-paying job.

That's simply not true. First of all I don't think it was hanging on to a well paying job. The guy loved playing. But most of all he wasn't really hanging on until those last couple seasons.

I actually hated Chelios and it took me several years to come around to him wearing the Winged Wheel. To me he doesn't seem like a a particularly great guy either, but he was a great defenseman. When he came to the Wings he wasn't nearly as physical or dirty as he had been in the past, but as I stated earlier he was still a valuable d-man beyond '02.

For his 10 seasons with the Wings, Chelios's peak was absolutely higher than Kronwall's. Looking at Kronner's entire career though I can see the argument Kronwall was more valuable and could be ranked higher, but it's closer than you're making it sound.
 

Retire91

Stevey Y you our Guy
May 31, 2010
6,135
1,563
I don't see how Kronwall would be above Chelios. Maybe the later years when he was slow as molasses are coloring people's memories of him?

Cheli played 10 seasons with the Wings, which is longer than his time with Montreal or Chicago. He was a Norris runner up in 2002 behind Lidstrom. That's rarified are Kronwall never breathed.

Not pushing my oppinon as gospel it is just my opinion. I don't look at Chelios's tenure that objectively. Chelios played hockey many years past his expiration date. I don't consider Kronwall a better defenseman than Chelios, I just don't consider Chelios a "career red wing". His peak seasons were with other organizations. We got about 2 great years of Chelios, 2-3 good years, and 5-6 Meh years. For Kronwall to hit the same level of post effective Meh he would need to play about 3 more seasons. We got all of Kronwall's peak but none of Chellios's peak.

For Vladdy its tough, I feel like he is above Kronwall in talent for sure, but when you are talking "All Time Wings" does a couple peak seasons outweigh an entire career with the wings. I guess its all just in the way you look at it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lazlo Hollyfeld

MBH

Players Play
Jul 20, 2019
13,497
7,298
SE Michigan
redwingsnow.com
That's simply not true. First of all I don't think it was hanging on to a well paying job. The guy loved playing. But most of all he wasn't really hanging on until those last couple seasons.

I actually hated Chelios and it took me several years to come around to him wearing the Winged Wheel. To me he doesn't seem like a a particularly great guy either, but he was a great defenseman. When he came to the Wings he wasn't nearly as physical or dirty as he had been in the past, but as I stated earlier he was still a valuable d-man beyond '02.

For his 10 seasons with the Wings, Chelios's peak was absolutely higher than Kronwall's. Looking at Kronner's entire career though I can see the argument Kronwall was more valuable and could be ranked higher, but it's closer than you're making it sound.

I loved Chelios, from his rookie season in Montreal.
And i think it's entirely debatable whether or not his peak was higher than Kronwall's.

Simply because Norris voting is so reputation based. Kronwall never, ever had a Norris rep. If Chelios wasn't Chelios, he doesn't place 2nd in Norris voting in 02.
But he was Chelios. He's a major hockey personality. Playing well on hockey's most star-studded team.

That said, I thought the Chelios-Fischer pairing in 02 was fantastic.

But after 02? Chelly's game went downhill fast.
 

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
I loved Chelios, from his rookie season in Montreal.
And i think it's entirely debatable whether or not his peak was higher than Kronwall's.

Simply because Norris voting is so reputation based. Kronwall never, ever had a Norris rep. If Chelios wasn't Chelios, he doesn't place 2nd in Norris voting in 02.
But he was Chelios. He's a major hockey personality. Playing well on hockey's most star-studded team.

That said, I thought the Chelios-Fischer pairing in 02 was fantastic.

But after 02? Chelly's game went downhill fast.

I feel like you can't have it both ways. Earlier in this same thread you use Norris Trophies in your criteria when talking about different D-men and their accomplishments.

Example:

Vladdie isn't feelings over fact.
Vladdie finished 2nd and 4th in Norris voting.
He won a cup and was, at times, our MVP.

Long before Vladdie was hurt, he was a hero in this town.

Perhaps I underrate Coffeey - but I'll always remember his heartless performance against the Devils.

But then when Norris voting goes against your narrative you dismiss the Norris voting as "reputation based". So which is it? You can't only use something when it fits your personal narrative.
 

MBH

Players Play
Jul 20, 2019
13,497
7,298
SE Michigan
redwingsnow.com
I feel like you can't have it both ways. Earlier in this same thread you use Norris Trophies in your criteria when talking about different D-men and their accomplishments.

Example:



But then when Norris voting goes against your narrative you dismiss the Norris voting as "reputation based". So which is it? You can't only use something when it fits your personal narrative.


Either quit playing "gotcha" or dip your toes in the world of nuance.

Vladdie, as anyone who knows 90s hockey understands, was underrated by a hockey press that was slow to reward European defensemen.
He was a guy on his way up - even as his game may have peaked.
Building a reputation while Norris voters bias began to fade.

And evidence of it is that Vladdie's Norris standing went up as his play either slipped leveled off..


Either way, do you have an opinion on any of the rankings?
Where Kronwall is?
Where Kronwall is vs Chelios?
Or Vladdy?
Or Vladdy vs Chelios?
 

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
Either quit playing "gotcha" or dip your toes in the world of nuance.

Vladdie, as anyone who knows 90s hockey understands, was underrated by a hockey press that was slow to reward European defensemen.
He was a guy on his way up - even as his game may have peaked.
Building a reputation while Norris voters bias began to fade.

And evidence of it is that Vladdie's Norris standing went up as his play either slipped leveled off..


Either way, do you have an opinion on any of the rankings?
Where Kronwall is?
Where Kronwall is vs Chelios?
Or Vladdy?
Or Vladdy vs Chelios?

All I ask is if you are going to attempt to dictate what is valid vs what is not valid, be consistent. Don't dismiss one person's argument because you claim some bias in the Norris voting, then use the Norris as a tool to validate your own argument when it fits with your narrative in a different discussion. The Norris either matters, or it doesn't, don't flip flop, it's hypocritical.

I'm more then happy to join, I just ask you one question. Is the Norris valid to bring up when comparing d-men? Or no? If you actually answer that question without changing the topic, I have no issue sharing my opinion. Otherwise, I feel debating you is pointless.
 

MBH

Players Play
Jul 20, 2019
13,497
7,298
SE Michigan
redwingsnow.com
All I ask is if you are going to attempt to dictate what is valid vs what is not valid, be consistent. Don't dismiss one person's argument because you claim some bias in the Norris voting, then use the Norris as a tool to validate your own argument when it fits with your narrative in a different discussion. The Norris either matters, or it doesn't, don't flip flop, it's hypocritical.

I'm more then happy to join, I just ask you one question. Is the Norris valid to bring up when comparing d-men? Or no? If you actually answer that question without changing the topic, I have no issue sharing my opinion. Otherwise, I feel debating you is pointless.

I won't tell you what to do, the way you have with me. But I would ask that you debate in a more friendly way than playing "gotcha," and acting like everything's black or white.

If you don't want to read explanations, don't. Your call. But if you don't, it's really not fair to insinuate people are hypocrites or flipfloppers.

Yeah, I think Konstantinov's 2nd place finish means more than Chelios' 2nd place finish.
And I've explained why. You've ignored it.
And continued to ignore it.

And it's only part of the reasoning of why I rate Konstantinov ahead of Kronwall, but Kronwall ahead of Chelios.

The Norris voting is only a part of it. And I stand by that, for reasons I've already stated.
 

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
I won't tell you what to do, the way you have with me. But I would ask that you debate in a more friendly way than playing "gotcha," and acting like everything's black or white.

If you don't want to read explanations, don't. Your call. But if you don't, it's really not fair to insinuate people are hypocrites or flipfloppers.

Yeah, I think Konstantinov's 2nd place finish means more than Chelios' 2nd place finish.
And I've explained why. You've ignored it.
And continued to ignore it.

And it's only part of the reasoning of why I rate Konstantinov ahead of Kronwall, but Kronwall ahead of Chelios.

The Norris voting is only a part of it. And I stand by that, for reasons I've already stated.

Pot...Kettle, anyhow.

I haven't told you what to do, you can do whatever you want. I'm simply asking you to define a criteria that we can all follow since you started the debate. Not surprised that you refuse as that would mean you would have to admit you were wrong, something I have never seen you do through all the accounts.

I'm not ignoring anything, straw man argument. I actually also rank Vladdy above both Kronwall and Chelios, I am not arguing that. Your points as to why Vladdy ranks higher I agree with, what I call BS on is the idea that a second place Norris trophy finish does not count in the case of Chelios because the award is simply "reputation" based. If its simply a "reputation" based award, then lets not bring it up at all. Don't pick and choose when people can use it.
 

Mlotek

Registered User
Feb 28, 2017
921
346
South of US Border
Pot...Kettle, anyhow.

I haven't told you what to do, you can do whatever you want. I'm simply asking you to define a criteria that we can all follow since you started the debate. Not surprised that you refuse as that would mean you would have to admit you were wrong, something I have never seen you do through all the accounts.

I'm not ignoring anything, straw man argument. I actually also rank Vladdy above both Kronwall and Chelios, I am not arguing that. Your points as to why Vladdy ranks higher I agree with, what I call BS on is the idea that a second place Norris trophy finish does not count in the case of Chelios because the award is simply "reputation" based. If its simply a "reputation" based award, then lets not bring it up at all. Don't pick and choose when people can use it.
Chelios' 2nd place in Norris voting was in 2001-2. Nobody is arguing he wasn't amazing that season.

Feleno's argument is; Cheli's play dropped after that season.
 

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
Chelios' 2nd place in Norris voting was in 2001-2. Nobody is arguing he wasn't amazing that season.

Feleno's argument is; Cheli's play dropped after that season.

Really? This sounds to me like he's saying that he placed second because of his reputation:

I loved Chelios, from his rookie season in Montreal.
And i think it's entirely debatable whether or not his peak was higher than Kronwall's.

Simply because Norris voting is so reputation based. Kronwall never, ever had a Norris rep. If Chelios wasn't Chelios, he doesn't place 2nd in Norris voting in 02.
But he was Chelios. He's a major hockey personality. Playing well on hockey's most star-studded team
.

That said, I thought the Chelios-Fischer pairing in 02 was fantastic.

But after 02? Chelly's game went downhill fast.
 

vladdy16

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
2,551
375
This is a really convuluted topic.

Consider anyone from the modern era ahead of Konstantinov and Chelios besides Lidstrom and you are straying so far from evaluating hockey players and are just listing a happenstance.

Konstantinov continues to be criminally underrated in 2019, just like he was in 1997.

The idea that he was a passenger that played physical, and that style combined with the tragedy contribute to an inflated perception of his game is lazy, offensive, and patently false.

Konstantinov is truly one of the founding fathers of the red wings dynasty. He was not a role player, and very much on the same level as 19 and 5 building up to 1997. His impact on puck possession was so far beyond what ever gets talked about, it's remarkable how lazy people are comfortable with being in their analysis.

24, 16, 77 and 5 are all-time greats, with incredibly unique and transformative player builds. Coffey wasn't at his peak here, and contextually his stint as a Red Wing doesn't stack up to the others. But stacking anyone else from our team and time up to those players and there is a clear distinction to be made.
 

vladdy16

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
2,551
375
Also, Kronwall was nowhere near Chelios when it comes to in zone scoring chance suppression. The gap there is enormous imo.
 

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,089
5,065
Parts Unknown
Coffey is a hard player to rank. He was spectacular for the Red Wings but only played there four seasons. How do you rank that? Chelios wasn't as effective as Coffey in Detroit, but was very important defensively up to about 2007 and was a Norris finalist in 2002. Kronwall never had a peak in Detroit that would match Chelios' in his early Detroit years.

Kronwall is somewhere close to 10th for me. There's other guys from the early days like Stewart and Quackenbush that are hardly ever mentioned.

The deciding factor is where does Kronwall rank among his NHL peers of his era? How many times was he an All Star? How many times was he considered for an award?

He had a long and solid career, but that's about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VelenoLikeAFeleno

MBH

Players Play
Jul 20, 2019
13,497
7,298
SE Michigan
redwingsnow.com
Really? This sounds to me like he's saying that he placed second because of his reputation:

Come on. Chelios was fantastic in 02. Especially in the playoffs.
All I am saying is that he benefitted in Norris voting because of his rep.

But focus on this tiny spoke all you want.

The critical point is that Chelios had 2 big years in Detroit and then slipped in a big way.
 

MBH

Players Play
Jul 20, 2019
13,497
7,298
SE Michigan
redwingsnow.com
Pot...Kettle, anyhow.

I haven't told you what to do, you can do whatever you want. I'm simply asking you to define a criteria that we can all follow since you started the debate. Not surprised that you refuse as that would mean you would have to admit you were wrong, something I have never seen you do through all the accounts.

I'm not ignoring anything, straw man argument. I actually also rank Vladdy above both Kronwall and Chelios, I am not arguing that. Your points as to why Vladdy ranks higher I agree with, what I call BS on is the idea that a second place Norris trophy finish does not count in the case of Chelios because the award is simply "reputation" based. If its simply a "reputation" based award, then lets not bring it up at all. Don't pick and choose when people can use it.

When you're interested in talking about where Kronwall fits in the scheme of things, let me know.
 

TheClap

Registered User
Jul 20, 2014
424
326
Kronner was a 2nd pairing defensemen for the better part his career, behind Lidstrom/Rafalski. When he eventually took over as a top-pairing guy after Rafalski and Lidstrom retired, he was very good, but never elite, never an All-Star. A middle of the pack #1 defensemen.

His ranking depends on your subjective metrics. If you value longetivity with the team over talent and achievements, you'll value him higher. But he is nowhere close to the players Chelios, Vladdy, Larson, Coffey, Rafalski, Murphy were, he was just here longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vladdy16

vladdy16

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
2,551
375
Are there any numbers like that for Chelios?

I think you can just observe each guys activity level in the zone on film.

Kronwall was modern, conservative, and competent playing the odds in the d-zone. Chelios was a whirling fire extinguisher from end board to circle top.
 

MBH

Players Play
Jul 20, 2019
13,497
7,298
SE Michigan
redwingsnow.com
I think you can just observe each guys activity level in the zone on film.

Kronwall was modern, conservative, and competent playing the odds in the d-zone. Chelios was a whirling fire extinguisher from end board to circle top.

Yeah, I don't deny that. Just wondering.
But, even given that allowance, I think Chelios' goal suppression value decreased considerably over time.
Post 02 Chelios was not the same as 99-02 Chelios.
 

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
Come on. Chelios was fantastic in 02. Especially in the playoffs.
All I am saying is that he benefitted in Norris voting because of his rep.

But focus on this tiny spoke all you want.

The critical point is that Chelios had 2 big years in Detroit and then slipped in a big way.

lol sure, just a little spoke.

I'm not trying to be an ass, at times I enjoy debating with you. But its not enjoyable to debate when someone will say whatever they can to attempt to prove they are right. This is just one example of that, but you do it often and you refuse to budge. If I didnt care and if I didnt want to have healthier debates with you, I would just ignore you.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->