- Sep 22, 2011
- 11,465
- 12,045
Absolutely.
Chara's shortcoming is that he isn't as slick as Bourque. Bourque's shortcoming is that he isn't 6-8 and wasn't as high end a shut down guy.
Both players were the best at what they did in the NHL for almost the entirety of their careers. Neither should be criticized for not doing what the other did. You compare both to their contemporaries and they will prevail Bourque was a much better player than tools who stole Norris's from him like Leetch and Chelios and the best D men of Chara's time didn't measure up to him defensively.
Sorry, but Chara was little more than a freak on the Island, and even up till him going to the Bruins, there were some (including the Sens management) who claimed Wade Frigging Redden was the better choice moving forward. It wasn't till he came to the Bruins that he became truly "the best at what (he) did in the NHL." Bourque, on the other hand, was a Calder winner and perennial All Star from the get go.
Lidstrom was soft as a marshmallow and Pronger was hurt a lot and only had a handful of elite seasons. Those are the only 2 modern guys who deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Chara and Bourque and neither is perfect.
Absurd. Nick Lidstrom was the best all around defenseman of his era. He didn't deserve all his Norris trophies, especially the one he stole from Chara, but he deserved more of them than anyone else in his era.
Last edited: