Were Gretzky and Lemieux capable of being the best defensive forwards ever?

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,026
14,509
Curious about people's thoughts here. Those two are easily the 2 forwards with the highest hockey IQ ever (...right?). Clearly in their careers, they were always all about offense. Even any actual defensive assignments (such as PK) they probably tried to turn into offense and score goals.

What if at some point in their prime/peak - they decided "screw offense - i'm going to be the best damn defensive player ever this year". How easy would the switch have been? Could they have become arguably the best defensive players ever?

I believe defense is largely tied to hockey iq - and is 'easier' than offense. So if you take the 2 most gifted players ever, and have them concentrate on defense first - you should see good results. Does that theory make sense, or am i completely out to lunch? And if you agree with the theory - do we just concede that "they could be pretty damn good at defense" or do we take it as far as to say, they could have been the best ever at it, similarly to how they were at offense?

Obviously - it's not always evident to excel at both aspects at the same time. If you concentrate more on defense - you probably sacrifice offense, and vise versa. So in the context of this discussion - forget offense. Assume their goal is strictly defensive excellence, no matter the cost to their offense.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,201
17,552
Connecticut
Curious about people's thoughts here. Those two are easily the 2 forwards with the highest hockey IQ ever (...right?). Clearly in their careers, they were always all about offense. Even any actual defensive assignments (such as PK) they probably tried to turn into offense and score goals.

What if at some point in their prime/peak - they decided "screw offense - i'm going to be the best damn defensive player ever this year". How easy would the switch have been? Could they have become arguably the best defensive players ever?

I believe defense is largely tied to hockey iq - and is 'easier' than offense. So if you take the 2 most gifted players ever, and have them concentrate on defense first - you should see good results. Does that theory make sense, or am i completely out to lunch? And if you agree with the theory - do we just concede that "they could be pretty damn good at defense" or do we take it as far as to say, they could have been the best ever at it, similarly to how they were at offense?

Obviously - it's not always evident to excel at both aspects at the same time. If you concentrate more on defense - you probably sacrifice offense, and vise versa. So in the context of this discussion - forget offense. Assume their goal is strictly defensive excellence, no matter the cost to their offense.

I don't agree.

They are the greatest offensive players ever because of their incredible skills. The hockey IQ thing is way overplayed. Sure, they had great vision but what made them so productive was their ability to make plays, not just to see them. For all we know Scott Arniel might have seen the game like them but simply could not make the plays.

As for the question above, no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast and Voight

JasonRoseEh

Registered User
Oct 23, 2018
2,933
2,346
No, Lemieux was seen as a complete defensive liability for the majority of the first half of his career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

Minar

Registered User
Aug 27, 2018
328
288
I dont think so. Being a great defender requires a lot of physicality which neither of these players possessed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dennis Bonvie

Black Gold Extractor

Registered User
May 4, 2010
3,049
4,802
I believe defense is largely tied to hockey iq - and is 'easier' than offense.

Yes to the first part, and no to the second. Obviously, if a player knows where everyone is in the offensive zone due to vision, that doesn't magically disappear in the other two zones.

So if you take the 2 most gifted players ever, and have them concentrate on defense first - you should see good results. Does that theory make sense, or am i completely out to lunch? And if you agree with the theory - do we just concede that "they could be pretty damn good at defense" or do we take it as far as to say, they could have been the best ever at it, similarly to how they were at offense?

Obviously - it's not always evident to excel at both aspects at the same time. If you concentrate more on defense - you probably sacrifice offense, and vise versa. So in the context of this discussion - forget offense. Assume their goal is strictly defensive excellence, no matter the cost to their offense.

In another thread about goalies, quoipourquoi noted that unlike offensive stats, goalie stats start at perfection until "mistakes" pile up. It's basically the same if you're looking at a skater's defensive stats (i.e. on-ice goals against). In this sense, it's more difficult to find a clear outlier. Bobby Clarke is probably the best recent example. In 1974-75 to 1975-76, Clarke allowed only 42 non-PP goals against while he was on ice over 156 games. Some of this is definitely due to Bernie Parent. Given league-average SV%, that might go from 42 to 51 over two seasons. From here, the expected non-PP GA for a first-line forward over those two seasons would be 149. So that's 98 GA reduced when Clarke was on the ice, which is pretty impressive. Now let's look at Gretzky in 1984-85 to 1985-86 offensively. The expected non-PP GF for a first-line forward over those two seasons would be 153. Gretzky had 384 non-PP GF while he was on ice. So that's 231 GF increased when Gretzky was on the ice. Even if hypothetical Gretzky was perfect defensively (0 GA vs 153 GA), he wouldn't have been able to close the gap he made offensively. Even then, a hypothetically-perfect defensively Gretzky would never reach 0 GA because...

Defense is much more of a team effort (plus coaching!) than generating offense. If you're Gretzky, you could ignore Semenko on your wing offensively. If you're Henri Richard playing defensively, you're giving major side-eye toward a rookie Guy Lafleur. A teammate could blow his coverage while you do your job. A goalie can let in a bad one. The shooter could release a perfect shot. Additionally, a player's defensive effectiveness is also affected by his coach's defensive strategy. Is it a strategy that relies on shadowing a star player? Is it positional? Pressure the point or collapse toward the net?

I would say that yes, any player could commit themselves to playing defensively, but how does one determine the clear "best ever"? I doubt that's even possible if one is discussing defense.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,038
12,646
I don't think that the mentality is there with them. In a skills sense sure, particularly in Lemieux's case you have everything you could want in a defensive forward. I'm doubtful that they could fully change their view of the game (not their understanding of the game) after being so successful since they were small children. Even if you could start with young Gretzky or young Lemieux I'm not sure that they could be convinced to dedicate their efforts to preventing rather than creating.
 

TheClap

Registered User
Jul 20, 2014
424
326
Steve Yzerman went from being a high scoring, finesse, offensive minded player to a Selke-winning defensive stalwart later in his career.

If he could do it, so could have Gretzky and Lemieux.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fixxer

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,100
6,420
Bobby Clarke.

If he had been the 2nd or 3rd best offensive center on his team, he could have dedicated himself exclusively to defense instead of being simply the best two-way center since Nighbor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MXD

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,100
6,420
Steve Yzerman went from being a high scoring, finesse, offensive minded player to a Selke-winning defensive stalwart later in his career.

If he could do it, so could have Gretzky and Lemieux.
No way.

Stevie Y had GRIT. True grit.

That is something Mario lacked. To say Lemieux had grit is to demean the word and ignore his whining and getting owned by a 5'11 Lithuanian dman and a big-mouth goon forward, demanding his team acquire them because he couldn't tolerate their pestering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,903
136,980
Bojangles Parking Lot
Yes to the first part, and no to the second. Obviously, if a player knows where everyone is in the offensive zone due to vision, that doesn't magically disappear in the other two zones.

I do think there's a difference, though. Defensive IQ is just a different mindset than offensive IQ.

The defensive-minded player's perspective is one of maintaining a state that already exists. His IQ is formed around anticipating breakdowns and cutting them off before they can develop completely.

The offensive-minded player's perspective is one of breaking the status quo, creating a new state. Is IQ is formed not just around spotting potential vulnerabilities, but also in creating new vulnerabilities that didn't exist at all a split-second ago.

A player like Patrick Kane can see offensive possibilities that I don't think would ever even cross the mind of a Ryan O'Reilly, and O'Reilly can probably explain what happened better than Kane can.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,323
7,774
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
To answer the question succinctly, from an IQ point of view, yes. Yes, they could have. There's no such thing as defensive IQ and offensive IQ. They're just mirror images of one another. No one is smart in the dining room and dumb in the hallway. It doesn't make sense. The same brain power you would use to manipulate a defense is the same one you could use to destroy offense.

Naturally, there are other factors in both. Being good at offense requires some technical ability too. Being good at defense requires technical ability. Both require determination to do them. But no one skates across the red line and has their hockey intelligence drop in half. That doesn't make sense. Whether either of them had the desire to do so is a different story/question.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,903
136,980
Bojangles Parking Lot
To answer the question succinctly, from an IQ point of view, yes. Yes, they could have. There's no such thing as defensive IQ and offensive IQ. They're just mirror images of one another. No one is smart in the dining room and dumb in the hallway. It doesn't make sense. The same brain power you would use to manipulate a defense is the same one you could use to destroy offense.

I honestly don’t think that’s true. There is overlap, but reading a play in real-time in terms of offense is a different skill set than reading it in terms of defense.
 

tinyzombies

Registered User
Dec 24, 2002
16,824
2,337
Montreal, QC, Canada
They game was different then, they weren't raised with that mindset and they were expected to score - which was a burden. People think scoring is easy, but even with the bad goalies/skaters, etc. back then... they knew these guys were coming and the puck would go to them.. and they still had to score.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,323
7,774
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
I honestly don’t think that’s true. There is overlap, but reading a play in real-time in terms of offense is a different skill set than reading it in terms of defense.

It just can't be from my perspective. Let's put it on the same footing. I don't have the puck on offense...I have to either create a lane, set a pick, get open, whatever it is, I have to get to a spot and perform a task for offense to extend. I don't have the puck on defense...I have to clog up a lane, beat a pick/isolation play, cover an open man, whatever it is, I have to get to a spot and perform a task for defense to destroy.

There's a reason why so many "safe" picks in the draft fail. How many times do we hear, "oh, he plays good defensively, he's a 'safe' pick"...that's not a thing for the most part. Third and fourth line players in the NHL are players who failed from an offensive technical skill perspective and became fourth liners. Teams aren't going out there shopping for fourth liners in the draft. The players that flunk out completely are the ones who refuse (or cannot compute how) to adapt their game. Brett Connolly, failed his way down (now, he's on the upshoot I think again, but still)...Daniel Winnik failed his way down...Tom Kuhnhackl failed his way down...I'm talking about guys who adapted their games to hang on specifically with those examples...

Your very own 7th overall pick Haydn Fleury: Draft Profile: Haydn Fleury

"epitomizes safe pick"...yup, and he's nice and safe every night working the concession stand (though I think he played a bit this year, but the point is valid)...that's who fills in the bottom for the most part, it's guys who failed at offense...Maxime Talbot, QMJHL star. Guy Carbonneau, QMJHL star, Lawson Crouse OHL power forward extraordinaire, Valeri Nichushkin Russian offensive weapon, etc. they all adapted to become checkers because they couldn't create at this level...

The ones that bring technical offense but don't have the hockey sense to adapt it (and part of good hockey sense is knowing your own skill limitations, believe me...) are the ones that flunk out...Nail Yakupov, Cody Hodgson, what have you...you can either think the game or you can't...the can't is stunted growth and development. Which means you have to be absolutely amazing at something to make up for it...
 

Midnight Judges

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2010
13,459
9,878
IMO it's partially a different skill set and it requires partially different attributes.

One of Gretzky's great attributes was elusiveness. He deployed it to great effect, but it wouldn't have helped him much in terms of preventing goals.

When I think of great defensive players, I think of players who are hounds, durable enough to go into corners routinely, strong enough to take a forward out of the crease or at least make it really hard for them to stay there without a big fight, strong enough to hound a player even from an awkward angle or position, and great at hitting (which can be a huge defensive asset). Gretzky embodies pretty much none of these things, and Lemieux probably would have missed even more games had he tried to put himself through this work.

So I just don't see it.

I think they could have been excellent in certain aspects of defense - particularly the ones that rely on finesse and IQ - lift checks, takeaways, etc.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,323
7,774
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
That brings up a good and poignant point...there's a lot of differences between how defense is actually viewed. There's these weird iterations I guess, of "flash" defense...just like there is "flash" offense (Mike Ribeiro, Kyle Wellwood, somewhat empty or hollow...)...too often I found some fans equating defense with the Ryan Callahan style of it...diving around the ice at a million miles per hour, blocking a shot with your mouth, constantly bleeding, whatever...and yeah, there's some guts there and all that and that's good...

But then where does that leave us with Carbonneau, Lemaire, Bergeron...hell, I mean, Zetterberg was tough to play against but he didn't employ that kind of style. He wasn't going around crushing people...Datsyuk...Semin even, as unpopular as that will be to say...even if you want to suggest that something like elusivity is a hockey sense thing (and I see where you're coming from, but I don't think I put it there necessarily, at least not fully), part of the allure of Semin and Datsyuk defensively was their ability to not get lost in an isolation play, part of the allure of Zetterberg is that he could get through a pick and make the play...

I find Datsyuk to be overrated defensively, but I'll use it against the crowd here...Datsyuk weighed about four pounds when he played. Looks like he did all right, no? I mean, that guy isn't an unfair comparable to what 99 would have looked like if he played defense, yes?
 

MeHateHe

Registered User
Dec 24, 2006
2,401
2,725
I understand the question is whether the two had the chops to be considered 'defensive' forwards but members of the Edmonton media liked to consider Gretzky's offense-first mindset to be a defensive asset. The old line about the best defence being a good offence is what was at play -if the other team can't get the puck, they can't score. Gretzky got votes for the Selke in 85 and 86, probably from one of those Edmonton media members with a vote. Thankfully, the argument never got a good enough hold to actually change the outcome of the vote.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,201
17,552
Connecticut
I understand the question is whether the two had the chops to be considered 'defensive' forwards but members of the Edmonton media liked to consider Gretzky's offense-first mindset to be a defensive asset. The old line about the best defence being a good offence is what was at play -if the other team can't get the puck, they can't score. Gretzky got votes for the Selke in 85 and 86, probably from one of those Edmonton media members with a vote. Thankfully, the argument never got a good enough hold to actually change the outcome of the vote.

Yet Gretzky was on the ice for more goals against than any other player in history.
 

Minar

Registered User
Aug 27, 2018
328
288
They game was different then, they weren't raised with that mindset and they were expected to score - which was a burden. People think scoring is easy, but even with the bad goalies/skaters, etc. back then... they knew these guys were coming and the puck would go to them.. and they still had to score.
The goalies weren't bad for THEM. The skaters weren't bad for THEM. They were the best goalies and skaters of that time.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->