Was Lidstrom a generational talent?

[Lollipop]

IMO, he is the only generational talent ever from Nordic. He dominated his position in his era with his 7 norrises, conn smythe, 4 rings and olympic gold. .

But I see some people don't think he is a generational talent. Why not?

If you think he is that, why?

Click to read more...

 

[CP31]

Yes because 7 norrises/longevity

 

[gudzilla]

don't think he's a generational talent since he wasn't drafted 1OA or close to that. he was however a generational player.

 

[Marlowe Syn]

The only knock on Lidstrom I have is that last Norris he won. I think he won it as a sentimental vote. Weber deserved it I think. That notwithstanding Lids dominated the position for so long. I rank him right up there with Orr and Gretzky.

 

[Lollipop]

don't think he's a generational talent since he wasn't drafted 1OA or close to that. he was however a generational player.

I agree with you? I meant player not talent.

 

[Dellstrom]

don't think he's a generational talent since he wasn't drafted 1OA or close to that. he was however a generational player.

What?

Yes, he was. He's one of the top 5 defensemen of all time. 7 Norris Trophies. Played at an elite level from start to finish. Conn Smythe, four cups... enough for me.

 

[johan f]

Nick had a couple of Norris-worthy years before he won his first. He had to stand in line for older and more famous players.....just like other have done behind Nick in his twillight years.

 

[Lollipop]

The only knock on Lidstrom I have is that last Norris he won. I think he won it as a sentimental vote. Weber deserved it I think. That notwithstanding Lids dominated the position for so long. I rank him right up there with Orr and Gretzky.

If so then it make up for the norris he lost. I don't think Blake should have won his norris ahead of Lidstrom.

 

[Corto]

The only knock on Lidstrom I have is that last Norris he won. I think he won it as a sentimental vote. Weber deserved it I think. That notwithstanding Lids dominated the position for so long. I rank him right up there with Orr and Gretzky.

I agree on that last vote, but then again, he should've had Rob Blake's Norris before he won his first one, so it evens out a bit.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Yes and easily. 7 Norris trophies. Are you kidding me?

 

[silkyjohnson50]

How many other defencemen have been elite while playing a game that lacked such physicality? Lidstrom pinning guys along the boards was his "physical game." Every other aspect of his game relied on positioning, hockey IQ, and stick skills (probably an underrated aspect of his game; being in the proper lane is one thing, but to consistently knock down passes and play so clean with the puck are another.)
He managed to have a ridiculously long and elite prime playing this style.

Seems pretty generational to me.

 

[Necropolis]

Yes, he was arguably the best defender in the NHL for 15 years.

 

[gudzilla]

What?

Yes, he was. He's one of the top 5 defensemen of all time. 7 Norris Trophies. Played at an elite level from start to finish. Conn Smythe, four cups... enough for me.

why wasn't he taken 1OA if he was a generational TALENT? he developped into a generational player.

i do however limit my generational talents to gretzky, lemieux, orr, howe and lindros

 

[UpGoesRupp]

If you want to break it down. No, he wasnt. He didnt have a single talent that completely outshone his peers.

But for the love of the game. Yes. Aside from physical talent and attritibutes, Lidstrom is in contention for the highest hockey iq of all time. The guy was a freak in the way he thought the game. Honestly, growing up watching him from the late nineties till now... He thought the game defensively how Gretzky saw the game offensively.

 

[ESH]

why wasn't he taken 1OA if he was a generational TALENT? he developped into a generational player.

i do however limit my generational talents to gretzky, lemieux, orr, howe and lindros

I would think that to be a generational player you'd need to be a generational talent. His hockey smarts and on ice intelligence is a talent of his that hasn't been matched by any other defenseman ever.

 

[tsbilly]

why wasn't he taken 1OA if he was a generational TALENT? he developped into a generational player.

i do however limit my generational talents to gretzky, lemieux, orr, howe and lindros

Are you saying draft position trumps performance in the NHL over decades? Your argument is incorrect, illogical, and quite dumb. Draft position has nothing to do with it. Performance does. MOD

 

[BigFatCat999]

Um yes. Generational talent. Patience, understanding defense, and perfection are undervalued skills. Between the ears the guy was a talent.

Pure and simple, the guy was one of the top dmen in hockey. Definitely best in this generation.

And I'm a Preds fan. I ****ing HATE Detroit. Is hate a strong word? Yes, yes it is. But is it strong enough for my feelings towards the organization. No, no it is not.

 

[tsbilly]

Also, see: Tom Brady

 

[overg]

I started watching hockey as a Wings fan in 1992. Lidstrom and Yzerman are my two favorite players of all time.

But I would say "no," he's not a generational talent. One of the very best superstar level players ever to play the game, and one of the greatest defensemen of all time, but he did not dominate the game at the level of Lemieux or Gretzky (the two true generational talents I got to watch).

For me, the "generational talents" simply toy with the competition. Right now, the "big 4" are it for me. Hoping to someday see number 5. But it wasn't Lidstrom.

 

[tsbilly]

I started watching hockey as a Wings fan in 1992. Lidstrom and Yzerman are my two favorite players of all time.

But I would say "no," he's not a generational talent. One of the very best superstar level players ever to play the game, and one of the greatest defensemen of all time, but he did not dominate the game at the level of Lemieux or Gretzky (the two true generational talents I got to watch).

For me, the "generational talents" simply toy with the competition. Right now, the "big 4" are it for me. Hoping to someday see number 5. But it wasn't Lidstrom.

Lidstrom dominated his position like no other player for 20 years. By "generation" do you mean century? If so, Lidstrom was still one of the top players of the last 100 years.

Name another player at the position that was better during the last twenty years. Come on, do it.

Also, your definition of 'generational talent' is incorrect. Please, look up 'generation,' that should help out.

 

[Ceremony]

Well, yes.

 

[Evincar]

Would Bourque and Potvin be considered generational talents too?

 

[HolyShot*]

Overrated.

 

[tsbilly]

why wasn't he taken 1OA if he was a generational TALENT? he developped into a generational player.

i do however limit my generational talents to gretzky, lemieux, orr, howe and lindros

Did you see what Lidstrom did to Lindros and the Legion of Doom in the '97 finals? What about that doesn't scream DOMINATION to you?

 

[a mangy Meowth]

I tend to think the prime of a player is a little more important than a long and steady career.

I would say no, simply because there were always Dmen around who were on or near his level throughout his career, and his "greatness" didn't even start for several seasons.

Then again, there are only a few generational talents ever, if you're asking me. Gretzky, Lemieux, Roy, Orr, Howe and maybe a couple others, Lindros could be arguable