The 14th Best Player In NHL History

[PatrikBerglund]

Yep, you know that I'm right. Bourque was better than Lidstrom.

At what?

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

At what?

Everything except team accomplishments (Cups, Gold Medal, etc.)

Bourque was a more skilled player than Lidstrom overall. Better skater, stronger, more physical, equal defensively and way better offensively. He was a one-man army in Boston.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Of all time? Are we suppose to rank for a teams whole lifetime or is this more recent years?

In NHL history. That means the entirety of the NHL, from 1917 to today.

 

[newfy]

Everything except team accomplishments (Cups, Gold Medal, etc.)

Bourque was a more skilled player than Lidstrom overall. Better skater, stronger, more physical, equal defensively and way better offensively. He was a one-man army in Boston.

I think the Bourque, Lidstrom, Harvey debate is a good one. I do think Lidstrom dealt with some Canadian bias and lost a sure fire norris to Blake, if he wins that hes tied for first all time. Bourque has better competition but wasnt the best as often as Lidstrom was so it kind of offsets and is interesting where people put them. Harvey has some questions about being in a 6 team league but more Norris trophies as well.

The offense thing for Bourque over Lidstrom is one that we see a lot. He wasnt the best offensive dman of his generation though, Coffey was. He might've been the best defensively. I dont think many will argue Lidstrom was the best offensive and defensive dman of his generation though. He wasnt flashy but he was really efficient and ended up the most productive dman of his generation. Bourque cant claim hes the best defensively and offensively like Lidstrom can.

I'm on the fence of who should be where because its hair width for me between the 3 but if Lidstrom is up there now, Bourque and Harvey should be very close to up next

 

[Captain Bowie]

Harvey has some questions about being in a 6 team league but more Norris trophies as well.

What questions are those?

 

[newfy]

What questions are those?

The fact that he didnt have to face much international competition and that he was part of the greatest dynasty of all time. He was a major part of that dynasty but he didnt have to face a Lidstrom for Norris competition and in a bigger league he wouldnt have been on that stacked of a team. Overall, I dont think its a big deal but they play a small factor here. Just like how I think Lidstrom had weaker competition than Bourque and Bourque wasnt the best offensive dman of his day, when youre talking about guys this good youre splitting hairs and these arguments will get brought up. Its up to people to decide where they stand on them but theyre all worth considering when picking a player for best all time, it just depends om how much you weigh each one

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

I think the Bourque, Lidstrom, Harvey debate is a good one. I do think Lidstrom dealt with some Canadian bias and lost a sure fire norris to Blake, if he wins that hes tied for first all time. Bourque has better competition but wasnt the best as often as Lidstrom was so it kind of offsets and is interesting where people put them. Harvey has some questions about being in a 6 team league but more Norris trophies as well.

The offense thing for Bourque over Lidstrom is one that we see a lot. He wasnt the best offensive dman of his generation though, Coffey was. He might've been the best defensively. I dont think many will argue Lidstrom was the best offensive and defensive dman of his generation though. He wasnt flashy but he was really efficient and ended up the most productive dman of his generation. Bourque cant claim hes the best defensively and offensively like Lidstrom can.

I'm on the fence of who should be where because its hair width for me between the 3 but if Lidstrom is up there now, Bourque and Harvey should be very close to up next

Normal, he didn't have to play against an offensive monster like Coffey unlike Bourque or a defensive monster like Langway. If Bourque played in the same generation than Lidstrom, no doubt he would have been the best offensive and defensive defenseman. However he played in the strongest era ever for defensemen, one could be better offensively (Coffey) and another defensively (Langway), the latter is debatable though, but no doubt Bourque was the top two-way defenseman of his generation. Among all those hall of fame defensemen, he was the best for most years (most Norris trophies of the bunch). If Bourque and Lidstrom played in the same generation, no question he would have been the top defenseman of his generation too over Lidstrom.

 

[Captain Bowie]

The fact that he didnt have to face much international competition and that he was part of the greatest dynasty of all time. He was a major part of that dynasty but he didnt have to face a Lidstrom for Norris competition and in a bigger league he wouldnt have been on that stacked of a team. Overall, I dont think its a big deal but they play a small factor here. Just like how I think Lidstrom had weaker competition than Bourque and Bourque wasnt the best offensive dman of his day, when youre talking about guys this good youre splitting hairs and these arguments will get brought up. Its up to people to decide where they stand on them but theyre all worth considering when picking a player for best all time, it just depends om how much you weigh each one

Maybe not Lidstrom but his best years lined right up with Red Kelly and Pierre Pilote. The latter of which won 3 straight Norris' himself and was 1st or 2nd for 6 straight years. But he wasn't able to win one until Harvey was 38 the first year after his stretch of 7 in 8 years and 3 in a row. Red Kelly won a Norris in 54 and Harvey finished 2nd. Harvey won his first the next year, the start of his 7 in 8 run.

And don't forget for these guys, 1954 was the first year for the Norris. Doug Harvey won his first in 1955 at the age of 30. Kelly won his in 1954 at the age of 26. So let's not let raw Norris wins be the be all and end all either, these guys would have added more if the award had existed.

 

[Neutrinos]

Lidstrom at #12 - despite never being a Hart finalist - seems like a poor choice

But if you want to insist Lidstrom is #12, how does Bourque not come in at #13?

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Lidstrom at #12, despite never being a Hart finalist, seems like a poor choice

But if you want to insist Lidstrom is #12, how does Bourque not come in at #13?

Maybe because the greatest goaltender of all-time (Roy) was still available at #13.

Anyway this list is tainted, it's still laughable to see Lidstrom at #12 and Bourque still available, Hasek before Roy, the Rocket outside the top 10, three current players (Jagr, Crosby and Ovechkin) in the top 10 (although in the case of Jagr, he is possibly in the top 10 now).