Was Konstantinov really a better player than Lidstrom pre-injury?

[brachyrynchos]

To me, Lidstrom took some to grow his game, having Konstantinov to learn from really helped him turn into one of the best defenseman ever.

I agree with Lidstrom growing his game, I remember reading somewhere the praise he gave to his defensive partner his rookie season, Brad McCrimmon (R.I.P), as a mentor and someone capable of covering his rookie mistakes. Not sure who was initially paired with Konstantinov. In those years Detroit had a good defensemen around, alot if vets that certainly rubbed off on Konstantinov and Lidstrom, that and a great environment to be in.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

It took a lot for me not to say that he was the much improved evolutionary step on Kasparaitis or Ulanov myself...but Yushkevich is a better answer...in fact, I'm not sure peak/later Yushkevich wasn't a better positional player and shot blocker...though not as dynamic...

i'd say konstantinov was far better as a puck mover and possession player than yushkevich ever was. that's why i added tanev to the comparison; steady, very effective, and completely unspectacular with the puck. and i nodded to kasparaitis for the open ice hitting of course.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

I agree with Lidstrom growing his game, I remember reading somewhere the praise he gave to his defensive partner his rookie season, Brad McCrimmon (R.I.P), as a mentor and someone capable of covering his rookie mistakes. Not sure who was initially paired with Konstantinov. In those years Detroit had a good defensemen around, alot if vets that certainly rubbed off on Konstantinov and Lidstrom, that and a great environment to be in.

The Wings were already saying in 95' that Lidstrom was the best D-man in the league. Yzerman talked about it openly even when both he and Konstantinov were on the same team. Having grown up with season tickets around that time I agree that Lidstrom was just a little better at controlling the game already. But the debate was certainly going because both guys were top 5 d-man in the league already in the mid-90's.

It's important to note that Lidstrom's dismantling of Lindros in the finals was the moment where the rest of the league really started to take seriously what Bowman and Yzerman were already saying. That was really the height of Lindros' powers, Konstantinov the rugged force having a career year seemed the likely guy but no that isn't what they did. That was the moment that you realized Lidstrom might not touch the puck a lot but few players have impacted the pace of play and flow of the game the way he did. He also could redirect you to the areas he wanted you to play offense in terms of exceptional positioning and one of the best sticks to come through the league. Scott Neidermayer and Rob Blake highlighted his ability to completely control play when he retired. Even Blake said I don't think we understood right away just how good Lidstrom was. But it was there pretty quickly, for those that complain about a few of his late career Norris trophies. In my opinion he was the best D-man in the league much earlier than he started actually winning that award and actually probably could have more.

But man alive to have both of them for another decade was going to be really tough on the rest of the league. I know Detroit was fortunate and won a lot but they had two huge injuries/health complications in Konstantinov and Fischer during that stretch that really did hurt.

 

[Sentinel]

I agree that 97 playoffs was the first time Lidstrom firmly took over Konstantinov. He no longer had to cover for Coffey and finally got his perfect pair in Murphy.

 

[VanIslander]

Sigh... this is the third thread in the last 15 years here that I've felt compelled to talk about how overrated the risk-taking Konstantinov was. I thought him overhyped when I went to the Joe to watch games back in my uni days (U of Windsor was just across the Detroit river from the arena).

Larry Murphy was twice as good and I loathe as always the Penguins!