jcbio11
Registered User
Bonus question - what does he have to do to be considered the best d-man of all time?
Bonus question - what does he have to do to be considered the best d-man of all time?
Best all time or better than Bourque? Two different things in my mind. For best all time he needs to score 40+ goals and 100+ assists in a season. For Bourque, I think he is very close to being if not already at that level. I'd even suggest that Lidstrom has been more dominant in his generation than Bourque was in his. Bourque had to contend with Coffee, Langway, Chelios. No one defenseman in Lidstrom's time has consistently challenged him. He seems to be the cream that always rises to the top...but very quietly. He is not flashy and I don't have a memory of a definitive play he made (though I don't watch the Red Wings enough) like Bourque beating the Habs in OT or raising the Cup in his last game. Orr had the OT goal soaring through the air, plus his amazingly pure dominance. Potvin had a great shot from the point and delivered great hip checks. Robinson and his rushes and manhandling of other players. Pronger and his presence, albeit dirty a lot of the time. Zubov and his skating/passing. Stevens and his thunderous, borderline legal hits. Coffee and his effortless skating. These guys all stand out for me because of definitive plays they made to define themselves again and again. With Lidstrom, he just quietly gets the job done at an extremely efficient level. Perhaps the one thing that defines him, and I think I read this somewhere, is his seemingly lack of effort in execution. While the rest of the players are skating around at 100 mph and accomplishing little, Lidstrom seems to calmly execute what needs to be done.
That's impossible in today's NHL. Only one defenseman has ever done it and that was Orr in the 1970s. Today - impossible. Quality of competition is on another planet today.
I do have one big argument for Lidstrom vs Borque.
Cups. Team succes.
Bourque had to be piggybacked to his Stanley cup on an absolutely stacked Avalanche team, which had a fair chance of winning that year without him as well. Lidstrom played a critical role on 4 Stanley cup winning teams.
Sometimes it seems to me like people choose which arguments are okay for which players. I've often heard a player isn't HOF worthy or is worse than player X, because he hasn't had as much team success. Yet somehow this doesn't work for many people in the Lidstrom vs Borque debate.
Also, say he wins another Norris trophy and the Wings win another Cup with him being instrumental in that win, does that do it (better than Borque)?
Not a chance they win with no Bourque and Forsberg out for the last two rounds like he was that year. They were down 3-2 in the Finals as it was.
Well that's debatable. Not my point anyway. Still 4 cups vs 1 cup. Bourque powered Bruins - no cups.
Well that's debatable. Not my point anyway. Still 4 cups vs 1 cup. Bourque powered Bruins - no cups.
Well that's debatable. Not my point anyway. Still 4 cups vs 1 cup. Bourque powered Bruins - no cups.
What?One more Norris or Cup should do it. But you'll never convince the Orr fanboys here.
That's impossible in today's NHL. Only one defenseman has ever done it and that was Orr in the 1970s. Today - impossible. Quality of competition is on another planet today.
I do have one big argument for Lidstrom vs Bourque.
Cups. Team succes.
Bourque had to be piggybacked to his Stanley cup on an absolutely stacked Avalanche team, which had a fair chance of winning that year without him as well. Lidstrom played a critical role on 4 Stanley cup winning teams.
Sometimes it seems to me like people choose which arguments are okay for which players. I've often heard a player isn't HOF worthy or is worse than player X, because he hasn't had as much team success. Yet somehow this doesn't work for many people in the Lidstrom vs Bourque debate.
Also, say he wins another Norris trophy and the Wings win another Cup with him being instrumental in that win, does that do it (better than Bourque)?
It is not debatable. To say Bourque was piggybacked to a cup by a stacked team is revisionist history.
Both were incredible playoff performers.
One more Norris or Cup should do it. But you'll never convince the Orr fanboys here.
I agree with almost everything you posted.With forward scoring declining I would be reluctant to say that another defenseman winning the Art Ross is impossible. It would take a special talent playing on a team where the coach is willing to let the player simply play but it is possible given present circumstances.
Team success. Have always believed that team success is a key measure of a players greatness. However the team concept has to extend far beyond the players. Coaches, management and ownership play vital roles as well.
In the context of Bourque vs Lidstrom the Red Wings provided Lidstrom with a huge advantage. He was surrounded with better players - Bourque had Neely for a few years while Lidstrom had a steady supporting cast with multiple HHOFers most of the time. Coaching / management. Bourque's career was marked by Harry Sinden in Boston with a steady turnover of fir to mediocre coaches until it was too late. Lidstrom's career featured excellent management/ownership throughout his career supported by the greatest coach in NHL history - Scotty Bowman and the best present day - 21st century coach in Mike Babcock. Simply Ray Bourque had to overcome bad ownership/management and coaching to achieve whatever success he had while Lidstrom was helped by elite ownership/management/coaching to attain his success.
Except that Bourque retained his superb play in the playoffs, often carrying his team far further than they would have made it his team carrying superhuman efforts, despite almost always being the prime target of shutdown for the opposing team, while Dionne's play in the playoffs was the opposite.Bourque was very strong in the playoffs but I think at this point you really gotta give Lidstrom the nod.
He has 4 cups wins, 6 finals appearances and has a Conn Smythe and was the captain of a cup winner. That is one hell of a playoff resume for the modern NHL.
People can give Bourque the regular season title for having a ton of longevity but Lidstrom wins the playoff resume pretty handily.
The same people that will defend Bourque as having "played on bad Bruins teams" are the same ones who will pound on Marcel Dionne and others regardless of their teams being even worse.
The same people that will defend Bourque as having "played on bad Bruins teams" are the same ones who will pound on Marcel Dionne and others regardless of their teams being even worse.
Simply Ray Bourque had to overcome bad ownership/management and coaching to achieve whatever success he had while Lidstrom was helped by elite ownership/management/coaching to attain his success.
That's impossible in today's NHL. Only one defenseman has ever done it and that was Orr in the 1970s. Today - impossible. Quality of competition is on another planet today.
I do have one big argument for Lidstrom vs Bourque.
Cups. Team succes.
Bourque had to be piggybacked to his Stanley cup on an absolutely stacked Avalanche team, which had a fair chance of winning that year without him as well. Lidstrom played a critical role on 4 Stanley cup winning teams.
Sometimes it seems to me like people choose which arguments are okay for which players. I've often heard a player isn't HOF worthy or is worse than player X, because he hasn't had as much team success. Yet somehow this doesn't work for many people in the Lidstrom vs Bourque debate.
Also, say he wins another Norris trophy and the Wings win another Cup with him being instrumental in that win, does that do it (better than Bourque)?
1. In my personal opinion, the only thing Bourque has on Lidstrom is that he was an elite defenseman for significantly more seasons. 19 post-season all star teams to soon to be 12. The difference isn't that great, I don't think, as Bourque came into the league an elite defenseman, so he already had a "reputation" during his very slow decline. Whereas, Lidstrom probably lost a nod or two early in his career because his style of play was unappreciated.
Regardless, there is still a definitely edge for Bourque in terms of number of elite seasons, and it's not a small one.
So Lidstrom really needs to either put together another couple of seasons like the one he currently is having, or he needs another Smythe-worthy playoff run to close the gap.
For those who think peak Bourque was better than peak Lidstrom, there is no way he can catch Bourque this late in his career.
2. Best defenseman of all time? Lidstrom would need to compete for the Art Ross and Hart Trophy on a regular basis and be the undisputed best player on his team for multiple playoff runs... yeah... not going to happen.
That's impossible in today's NHL. Only one defenseman has ever done it and that was Orr in the 1970s. Today - impossible. Quality of competition is on another planet today.
I do have one big argument for Lidstrom vs Bourque.
Cups. Team succes.
Bourque had to be piggybacked to his Stanley cup on an absolutely stacked Avalanche team, which had a fair chance of winning that year without him as well. Lidstrom played a critical role on 4 Stanley cup winning teams.
Sometimes it seems to me like people choose which arguments are okay for which players. I've often heard a player isn't HOF worthy or is worse than player X, because he hasn't had as much team success. Yet somehow this doesn't work for many people in the Lidstrom vs Bourque debate.
I agree with almost everything you posted.
Except that Bourque retained his superb play in the playoffs, often carrying his team far further than they would have made it his team carrying superhuman efforts, despite almost always being the prime target of shutdown for the opposing team, while Dionne's play in the playoffs was the opposite.
I already said Bourque was very good in the playoffs.
So were Jagr and Cujo and many others but they get denigrated and Bourque gets excused.
I just find the double standards that rear their heads about clutch play in general to be pretty fascinating.