I'm pretty sure he was talking about how a defencemen's offensive contributions are considered moreso than their defensive contributions (which should be more relevant). And I don't think anyone who was old enough to remember watching Bobby Orr would describe him as a "4th forward", or that he won the Norris 8 times on the basis of his offensive output. He revolutionized the way that d-men play the game.
Yes...by playing like a 4th forward. Which he was able to do, and still get back to play defense, because his skating was so far ahead of the league average.
When Orr was on the ice he usually carried the puck more than his forwards. That's how he revolutionized the position. And since he stopped winning the Norris it's only been given to players who werent amongst the elite offensively a handful of times.
A bad game against Toronto doesn't change the fact that Karlsson, at 22, was probably the second biggest factor in his team making the playoffs when by all accounts they were more likely to finish last. And he did it playing #1 minutes, and was very close to PPG.
Had there been a more impressive season that year by a more defensively sound defenseman, Karlsson would not have won. It's really not a big deal, and I don't see why there are people on this forum acting like it was a personal insult to them. You don't like Karlsson. That's great.
If last season Jake Gardiner had played #1 minutes and put up PPG numbers despite playing questionable defense, we all would have hoped for him to win the Norris. They both often play like forwards and have regular defensive lapses. They're both gifted skaters and playmakers. The difference is that Karlsson actually accomplished something special, but we don't like him.