Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 8

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
O

This last point is more out of curiosity, but what the heck happened in 1976-77? Park strangely has no Norris support and was 6th in AST voting despite playing a full season at a level statistically comparable to the two surrounding seasons (where he was both times AS-1 and Norris runner up).

Not even looking, but I'm pretty sure this is the year where Larry Robinson AND Borje Salming AND Guy Lapointe had their career year, all the while Denis Potvin was in his peak.

EDIT : It's exactly that. Well, the Guy Lapointe part is wrong, since he didn't really have a career year (and he doesn't have one), but it's one of the seasons where he scored 25 goals. The Big-3 all got Norris/AS support, finishing the year +70, +79 and +120.
 
Last edited:

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
Yeah well that's why he is just 'poor man's' Orr.


Calling Coffey a passanger is a bit of a joke. Makes it seem like he was Bernie Nicholls or something like that.

Nobody is a poor man's Orr. He's in a world of his own IMO. Best all around hockey player that ever lived.

Coffey should never, ever, be mentioned in the same breath as Orr. Doug Harvey is the only Dman, IMO, that is even in the same universe as Orr here.

Plus, as I said, his point production dropped like a rock after he left Wayne and Mario. And it's not like he was crazy old either. About 30 and still well within the raging scoring era of the 80's through early 90's. He was an elite skater, yes. And elite vision and puck distributing player. But he was paper soft and often times ignored defensive responsibilities. You can say, "well that was just a product of the times", but if that were the case Ray Bourque and others would have likely just been one way players. They weren't.

He played in an era where all of his flaws were mitigated and ignored by fans and media. This can't even be disputed in all reality. Heck, there was even media backlash in the mid 80's when they gave Ron Langway a pair of Norris wins because (some) people seemed to be getting tired of others ignoring key responsibilities of defensemen. Not that I think Langway should have won, but it gives credence to how the award has changed over the years.

How fortunate was Coffey? He played with the 2 greatest pure offensive forwards of all time and on an all time great Oilers dynasty with guys like Messier, Kuri, Anderson, etc. Then Mario and company in Pittsburgh on a brief stint.

Once in a while I get to an automatic NR and he's it this round. Probably next round as well. Like Jagr, people just look at the overview (Norris record, points, AS's, etc) and think he was a better actual defensemen than guys up for vote this round as well as few more who aren't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Farkas

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
No forward has ever come remotely close to touching any of Gretzkys records (aside from Lemieux). Mcdavid Crosby Lindros Jagr all far far away.

Orr was argubaly more dominating vs defensemen than Gretzky was for forwards - yet Paul Coffey came 1 point short of his season high. He has more goals than him in a season. He also has 5 of the top 10 defensemen point scoring seasons of all time (Orr has the other 5).

I really like him in this round.

Also - both Gretzky and Lemieux had their best seasons with him. Thats gotta mean something right?

Of course! Points! It's the litmus test for DEFENSEMEN THESE DAYS!!!!!

giphy.gif


Orr actually played defense. And very, very, very well.

Coffey didn't. Soft as hell. I'm not rewarding Dmen who didn't play actual defense by placing this high on a prestigious list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Macho Man

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Nobody is a poor man's Orr. He's in a world of his own IMO. Best all around hockey player that ever lived.

Coffey should never, ever, be mentioned in the same breath as Orr. Doug Harvey is the only Dman, IMO, that is even in the same universe as Orr here.

Plus, as I said, his point production dropped like a rock after he left Wayne and Mario. And it's not like he was crazy old either. About 30 and still well within the raging scoring era of the 80's through early 90's. He was an elite skater, yes. And elite vision and puck distributing player. But he was paper soft and often times ignored defensive responsibilities. You can say, "well that was just a product of the times", but if that were the case Ray Bourque and others would have likely just been one way players. They weren't.

He played in an era where all of his flaws were mitigated and ignored by fans and media. This can't even be disputed in all reality. Heck, there was even media backlash in the mid 80's when they gave Ron Langway a pair of Norris wins because (some) people seemed to be getting tired of others ignoring key responsibilities of defensemen. Not that I think Langway should have won, but it gives credence to how the award has changed over the years.

How fortunate was Coffey? He played with the 2 greatest pure offensive forwards of all time and on an all time great Oilers dynasty with guys like Messier, Kuri, Anderson, etc. Then Mario and company in Pittsburgh on a brief stint.

Once in a while I get to an automatic NR and he's it this round. Probably next round as well. Like Jagr, people just look at the overview (Norris record, points, AS's, etc) and think he was a better actual defensemen than guys up for vote this round as well as few more who aren't.

While Coffey is likely going to finish 9th or 10th on my list this round (based on what I finally decide to do with Lalonde), 2 brief points:

1) His 94-95 season shows that he could be a great player on a team that wasn't a run-and-gun Gretzky or Lemieux situation.
2) Unfortunately, we can't NR anyone this round :D
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ImporterExporter

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
Of course! Points! It's the litmus test for DEFENSEMEN THESE DAYS!!!!!

giphy.gif


Orr actually played defense. And very, very, very well.

Coffey didn't. Soft as hell. I'm not rewarding Dmen who didn't play actual defense by placing this high on a prestigious list.

First, great use of gif.
Second... I think you're confusing Coffey with Phil Housley.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FinLurker

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
While Coffey is going to finish 9th or 10th on my list this round (based on what I finally decide to do with Lalonde), 2 brief points:

1) His 94-95 season shows that he could be a great player on a team that wasn't a run-and-gun Gretzky or Lemieux situation.
2) Unfortunately, we can't NR anyone this round :D

Well, I guess I should learn to count! :laugh:
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
First, great use of gif.
Second... I think you're confusing Coffey with Phil Housley.

Ron Swanson/Nick Offerman are my hero's. :D

I don't think there is much of a difference to be honest. Maybe not a popular opinion but neither played defense. Both were near clones. Coffey just had slightly better physical gifts. Saw em both. You put Housely on a dynasty and with 99 and 66, then Coffey on a shit team (like Winnipeg and to lesser degree Buffalo) and we're not talking about the latter at all right now.

I'm 100% confident of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

Troubadour

Registered User
Feb 23, 2018
1,157
842
Plus, as I said, his point production dropped like a rock after he left Wayne and Mario. And it's not like he was crazy old either. About 30 and still well within the raging scoring era of the 80's through early 90's.

This is interesting, because it's completely wrong.

Coffey's production did not drop like a rock. He was a point-per-game or over-a-point-per-game player even after he had left Lemieux and Gretzky in LA. He actually was pretty old by then (33 and older), and yet he led the Red Wings in scoring in the lockout season at that age (outscoring Yzerman by 20 points). And of course, years like 95 just can't be argued to be "something like the 80s".

Coffey's level dropped big time when he got traded to the Whalers, but he was going on 36 by then.

EDIT: Btw, Lemieux only played around 25 RS games during 90/91. Coffey still posted sexy numbers.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
Ron Swanson/Nick Offerman are my hero's. :D

I don't think there is much of a difference to be honest. Maybe not a popular opinion but neither played defense. Both were near clones. Coffey just had slightly better physical gifts. Saw em both. You put Housely on a dynasty and with 99 and 66, then Coffey on a **** team (like Winnipeg and to lesser degree Buffalo) and we're not talking about the latter at all right now.

I'm 100% confident of that.

Put Housley on a dynasty and it's not a dynasty unless they get another #1 D-Men because there hasn't been a #1D-less dynasty since forever. Coffey wasn't super physical, but wasn't soft, and could actually play remotely competent D when wanting to do so, something he admittedly didn't do much.

Besides, his strength was mostly to make sure the ice would tilt in the favor of his team BY playing a very offensive kind of hockey.
 
Last edited:

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
I'm not dignifying that post with an answer. If you have an issue with my R1 rankings (because that's the only actual point you're making here), you may bring them to Quoipourquoi, or to one of the screeners.

I don't have an issue with your R1 list. Everyone is entitled to their opinions even if i certainly don't agree with this particular ranking of yours.

I stated that voters around here are a bit too defense oriented vs offense oriented. And you claimed they weren't - and then claimed you had Coffey close to 70. That's highly inconsistent, which is what i'm pointing out. How can you disagree that offense is being undervalued by many voters and then have Coffey close to 70? He's the 2nd best offensive defenseman ever.

A lot of voters (and maybe it's not a lot of them, just a very loud minority) in this project are completely shunning offense, which i think is unfortunate.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
Ron Swanson/Nick Offerman are my hero's. :D

I don't think there is much of a difference to be honest. Maybe not a popular opinion but neither played defense. Both were near clones. Coffey just had slightly better physical gifts. Saw em both. You put Housely on a dynasty and with 99 and 66, then Coffey on a **** team (like Winnipeg and to lesser degree Buffalo) and we're not talking about the latter at all right now.

I'm 100% confident of that.

Great. And considering this project is all about hypotheticals, this hypothetical is worth exactly nothing here.

Put Wayne Gretzky on a baseball team instead of a hockey team and I guarantee you he's not #1 in this project either. How does that help us? This is pure speculation and nothing more.

Coffey owns 5 of the top 10 offensive seasons of all time by a defenseman. That's the data we have to use to judge his offensive contributions on. And he did it playing his whole career head to head against guys like Bourque.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
I don't have an issue with your R1 list. Everyone is entitled to their opinions even if i certainly don't agree with this particular ranking of yours.

I stated that voters around here are a bit too defense oriented vs offense oriented. And you claimed they weren't - and then claimed you had Coffey close to 70. That's highly inconsistent, which is what i'm pointing out. How can you disagree that offense is being undervalued by many voters and then have Coffey close to 70? He's the 2nd best offensive defenseman ever.

A lot of voters (and maybe it's not a lot of them, just a very loud minority) in this project are completely shunning offense, which i think is unfortunate.

I'll reiterate : if you have an issue with my R1 list, please address your concerns to @quoipourquoi or to screeners, because that is generally the only argument you are making.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,247
10,126
Paul Coffey may have been the second most talented member of the Oiler dynasty after Gretzky. If he played centre instead of defense, and played apart from Gretzky, history may have viewed him far better. It's too bad for Coffey that defensemen have to, you know, play defense.


Fair enough but if he played center where would have he slotted in on the Oilers?

Also I dont buy the arguement that Orr would have made a better forward, why would it be applicable to Coffey?

He was a Dman that's how we need to judge him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MXD

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,562
10,110
Melonville
Fair enough but if he played center where would have he slotted in on the Oilers?

Also I dont buy the arguement that Orr would have made a better forward, why would it be applicable to Coffey?

He was a Dman that's how we need to judge him.
My point was that he had great talent, but it was not best suited for defense. And I believe I said that if he played center on a different team, not the Oilers.

I think that if he was a center, he may already have been voted in a round or two ago. Pure conjecture, of course, but that's my opinion.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,247
10,126
Considering how much Esposito was negatively affected by the Orr effect around here i can only expect Brad Park will be around for the next 5 rounds or so...

I must have missed where Park played with Orr?

That being said I have Park 3rd among Dmen this round.
 

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,562
10,110
Melonville
Also I dont buy the arguement that Orr would have made a better forward, why would it be applicable to Coffey?
Orr would have been the best at any position he played. He was also vastly superior to Coffey, which is why I think Coffey would have benefited from a position where he would be far less harshly judged by his defensive awareness and could have gotten by on huge point production alone.
 

Batis

Registered User
Sep 17, 2014
1,093
1,030
Merida, Mexico
Here are the best-on-best international tournaments numbers of the new available players. Again with a focus on the knockout stage but also taking the overall numbers into account.

Chelios
Canada Cup 1984: 1 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Canada Cup 1991: 3 gp, 0 g, 2 a, 2 pts
World Cup 1996: 4 gp, 0 g, 2 a, 2 pts
Olympics 1998: 1 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Olympics 2002: 3 gp, 1 g, 0 a, 1 pts
World Cup 2004: 2 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Olympics 2006: 1 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 15 gp, 1 g, 4 a, 5 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 47 gp, 4 g, 13 a, 17 pts

Coffey
Canada Cup 1984: 3 gp, 1 g, 3 a, 4 pts
Canada Cup 1987: 4 gp, 1 g, 1 a, 2 pts
Canada Cup 1991: 3 gp, 0 g, 2 a, 2 pts
World Cup 1996: 5 gp, 0 g, 2 a, 2 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 15 gp, 2 g, 8 a, 10 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 33 gp, 6 g, 25 a, 31 pts

Park
Summit Series 1972: 8 gp, 1 g, 4 a, 5 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 8 gp, 1 g, 4 a, 5 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 8 gp, 1 g, 4 a, 5 pts

Dryden
Summit Series 1972: 4 gp, 98 saves on 117 shots, 0.838
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 4 gp, 98 saves on 117 shots, 0.838
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 4 gp, 98 saves on 117 shots, 0.838

Coffeys numbers at best-on-best tournaments are very impressive and especially his performance at the 1984 Canada Cup really stands out. However while his knockout stage numbers are strong he clearly did most of his scoring at the group stage (21 pts in 18 gp).

While Chelios obviously does not match up with Coffey offensively I would say that he still possibly may have the most impressive best-on-best resume of these players thanks to his 3 very impressive tournaments in 1991, 1996 and 2002 where he was voted to the tournament all-star team every time. I don't think that Chelios performance at any of those tournaments was quite as impressive as Coffeys performance in 1984 though and all in all I would probably say that Chelios and Coffey are on roughly the same level when it comes to best-on-best performances.

Park had a strong performance at the 1972 Summit Series. The same can not be said about Dryden though since he overall clearly had some struggles during that series. I do think that Dryden playing all of his best-on-best games against a highpowered offensive team with a very different playing style than he was used to can help explain his struggles to a certain degree. Still as evident by his other performances against Soviet teams in the 75/76 Super Series game and the 1979 Challenge Cup it is not as if Dryden managed to adjust that well to their playing style later on either (though he was at least alright in the Challenge Cup).

If we look at the whole group of available players when it comes to best-on-best resumes I would say that the ones that belong to the top group are Chelios, Coffey and Bossy. Behind them I would have Park. Then Yzerman and Robinson in some order and then I would say that Dryden has the weakest best-on-best resume in this group.

Bossy
Canada Cup 1981: 2 gp, 2 g, 1 a, 3 pts
Canada Cup 1984: 3 gp, 1 g, 1 a, 2 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 5 gp, 3 g, 2 a, 5 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 15 gp, 13 g, 7 a, 20 pts

Yzerman
World Cup 1996: 5 gp, 1 g, 0 a, 1 pts
Olympics 1998: 3 gp, 1 g, 0 a, 1 pts
Olympics 2002: 3 gp, 2 g, 3 a, 5 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 11 gp, 4 g, 3 a, 7 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 22 gp, 5 g, 6 a, 11 pts

Robinson
Canada Cup 1976: 2 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Canada Cup 1981: 2 gp, 0 g, 1 a, 1 pts
Canada Cup 1984: 3 gp, 1 g, 1 a, 2 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage:7 gp, 1 g, 2 a, 3 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 22 gp, 1 g, 3 a, 4 pts
 
Last edited:

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
I'll reiterate : if you have an issue with my R1 list, please address your concerns to @quoipourquoi or to screeners, because that is generally the only argument you are making.

No thank you - i won't be pm'ing anyone. I'm sure QPQ has enough things to worry about than to waste time over nonsense.

If you're so upset about someone discussing your R1 list ranking - simply don't bring it up next time?
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
How dare you demand a defenseman play defense!

Can you quantify it?

The easily available data is offense. It's easier to count points than to 'count' defense. The hockey world tends to agree that he's the best D as he has the best Norris record among defensemen here. I believe his superior offense overcomes his defensive shortcomings, enough to have him rank #1 among defenders here.

Convince me that someone else's lack of offense but superior defense is more valuable. I'm pretty open minded - i'm open to some convincing. But simply generalizing "his defense sucked! he's last!" isn't very productive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FinLurker

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Can you quantify it?

The easily available data is offense. It's easier to count points than to 'count' defense. The hockey world tends to agree that he's the best D as he has the best Norris record among defensemen here. I believe his superior offense overcomes his defensive shortcomings, enough to have him rank #1 among defenders here.

Convince me that someone else's lack of offense but superior defense is more valuable. I'm pretty open minded - i'm open to some convincing. But simply generalizing "his defense sucked! he's last!" isn't very productive.

Only if you think that Coffey finishing 5th when Chelios finished 6th is more important than Chelios actually winning his Norrises against generally better competition. (competition wasn't as good in the mid 80s when Coffey won his 1st two ones).

I mean, if you want to split hairs here, I think the competition factor is more important than whether the minority of writers who threw votes some way happened to be enough to count as a 5th or 6th.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
No thank you - i won't be pm'ing anyone. I'm sure QPQ has enough things to worry about than to waste time over nonsense.

If you're so upset about someone discussing your R1 list ranking - simply don't bring it up next time?

You're really the only one who is upset about it.

Also, you seem to have LOTS of problem with my input, so I'm kindly suggesting you put me on your Ignore List.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
Only if you think that Coffey finishing 5th when Chelios finished 6th is more important than Chelios actually winning his Norrises against generally better competition. (competition wasn't as good in the mid 80s when Coffey won his 1st two ones).

I mean, if you want to split hairs here, I think the competition factor is more important than whether the minority of writers who threw votes some way happened to be enough to count as a 5th or 6th.

I agree that Chelios's Norris record and Coffey's are roughly equivalent, and warrant deeper digging to better differentiate than just looking at finishes. But Coffey's is better than the other 2.

Looking at competition in winning years is important - but flip side is you also have to consider the strength of winning seasons (ie Coffey may have won against weaker competition one season - but if his winning season is still better than Chelios's equivalent, it wouldn't really matter).
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
This is interesting, because it's completely wrong.

Coffey's production did not drop like a rock. He was a point-per-game or over-a-point-per-game player even after he had left Lemieux and Gretzky in LA. He actually was pretty old by then (33 and older), and yet he led the Red Wings in scoring in the lockout season at that age (outscoring Yzerman by 20 points). And of course, years like 95 just can't be argued to be "something like the 80s".

Coffey's level dropped big time when he got traded to the Whalers, but he was going on 36 by then.

EDIT: Btw, Lemieux only played around 25 RS games during 90/91. Coffey still posted sexy numbers.

Let's see then. Do i really need to do this? :rolleyes: I have better things to do with my time than point out how Coffey's production dropped considerably after 90-91, sans 94-95 which was the exception, not the rule, and again, as part of a GREAT Red Wings team that had 70 damn points in just 48 games.

But what the hell?

Paul Coffey Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Look at this time in Edmonton. Well over a point per game. Ridiculous totals. Pittsburgh, same thing.

He gets to Detroit and is essentially a point per game player. In Edmonton his adjusted totals are well north of 100 points or just below that mark. Doesn't matter which study you're using.

Post Pittsburgh career? Other than a lockout shortened season, Coffey is somewhere in the 60's to 70's.

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

That's the league scoring averages. Again, 1 way player who got to play with the greatest offensive pure talent ever to lace up skates, in an era where typical goal averages were pushing 4 per.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that Coffey was, in large part, a product of the era and benefited greatly by not playing actual defense while skating with some dude named Wayne Gretzky.

I don't care what anyone else does. But if all you're (people in general, not you specifically) going to do is point to scoring totals for a defensemen and rank him largely based off that, than I honestly don't care to discuss hockey with those people. It's one thing if you wanted to push Jagr. He was a bleeping one way player, but at least he was a forward.

Paul Coffey was pathetic defensively. He more or less admitted as much. And I saw him play with my own eyes, like many others I'm, sure. I refuse to bend on a Dman who ignored the primary responsibility of his position. You can scream about era, and that's the way the team(s) played, but Ray Bourque played over the exact same time line and put up pretty gaudy offensive numbers himself, on less talented teams, and actually was strong in his own end.

BTW, did Coffey kill penalties? Nope. Another black mark on him trying to gain entry onto this list right now. Christ even Brian Leetch was used a good bit on the kill and wasn't terrible at it.




Put Housley on a dynasty and it's not a dynasty unless they get another #1 D-Men because there hasn't been a #1D-less dynasty since forever. Coffey wasn't super physical, but wasn't soft, and could actually play remotely competent D when wanting to do so, something he admittedly didn't do much.

Besides, his strength was mostly to make sure the ice would tilt in the favor of his team BY playing a very offensive kind of hockey.

Coffey was very soft, comparatively speaking to his peers at the time. We'll just agree to disagree i guess.

And I completely disagree about him vs Housley. Phil Housley at his peak, on Edmonton is a 100+ point player and those teams are still winning Cups. Maybe his totals wouldn't have been quite as high but if nothing else Housley could transition the puck and pass it almost as well as Coffey. If defense doesn't matter, than having seen both players, I'm quite sure that PH would have been no obstacle in Edmonton winning multiple Cups. But that's a discussion for another time.


Great. And considering this project is all about hypotheticals, this hypothetical is worth exactly nothing here.

Put Wayne Gretzky on a baseball team instead of a hockey team and I guarantee you he's not #1 in this project either. How does that help us? This is pure speculation and nothing more.

Coffey owns 5 of the top 10 offensive seasons of all time by a defenseman. That's the data we have to use to judge his offensive contributions on. And he did it playing his whole career head to head against guys like Bourque.

This is where I have a problem with how you present your positions.

It's all about numbers with you. That isn't hockey. Yeah, it's a part of it, maybe even a big part but take it from somebody who used to say a lot of the things you are in this project. The longer you watch the game, the more you study it and understand what works and doesn't the more you know that numbers can be very, very misleading on the surface. Coffey, as a Dman, played one way. And if the only argument you have is that it was the era, and what the team wanted, then I can point to other Dmen who were plenty good at moving the puck and creating offense, in the same exact era that didn't ignore the primary responsibility of the position itself.

Ray Bourque is somebody who should be able to just laugh in the face of Coffey, comparatively speaking. He was almost as good offensively while actually being a really strong player in his own end. Elite if you're just going H2H with Coffey.

Adjusted Even-Strength Plus-minus 1960-2017

Special teams roles - 1960-2017

Reference - VsX comprehensive summary (1927 to 2018)

Look at where Bourque is all time and look at Coffey. You want numbers that go beyond just simple scoring totals.

RB has the 2nd highest adjusted +/- ever. EVER. Coffey is waaaaaaaay down the list.

Coffey gave you about 10% more production offensively than Bourque. But then again, RB gave you God only knows how much more value defensively and on special teams.

Bourque was every bit as good as Coffey on the PP. He was a great PK'er as well and used very heavily in both roles.

So how is it that Bourque could post such great offensive numbers while actually being used in a shutdown role in his own end, during the same time frame as Coffey?
 

Nick Hansen

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
3,119
2,649
Coffey must've killed penalties regularly unless he was surprisingly offensively effective the few times he did it.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->